Attendant Console showing all phones with red X or cross

Unanswered Question
Aug 12th, 2010

CUCM 7.1

Attendant Console

Prescence also installed and working to AC

New installation

4 digit dialing

CUCM users synced from AD/LDAP

In the Attendant Console client the users phone icons all showed a red X or cross. The Presence Icon was working.

The LDAP server has 10 digit phone numbers. CUCM users therefor have 10 digit phone numbers in the user dB. Phones have 4 digit numbers. no big deal for CUCM. Other apps require 10 digit numbers in LDAP.

Updated LDAP with 4 digit numbers in the IPPhone field.

Changed the LDAP sync in CUCM to pull the IPPhone field for the phone number (to get 4 digit)

Stop and started the LDAP process on Attendant Console to get the 4 digit numbers from CUCM. (instead of 10)

Phone status now working in Attendant Console for the vast majority of phones.

(no longer need 10 digit to 4 digit translations in CUCM for the internal numbers when directory dialing on the phones too)

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Average Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
jason.aarons@us... Tue, 09/13/2011 - 06:38

Skip forward 3 years I'm having same issue.

CUEAC - Attendant Console showing all phones with red X or cross
CUCM 8.5(1)SU1

Phone Presence icon shows Red X over all the phones
4 digit dialing, LDAP ipPhone field = 4-digit (checked AD Users and Computers matches CCMAdmin match AC)
CUCM users synced from AD/LDAP
CallManager User Management > End User shows 4 digit, phones have same 4 digit number

In the Attendant Console client the users Phone Status icon all showed a red X or cross. The CUPS Presence Icon is working.

A00460610 Mon, 10/31/2011 - 09:29

You should ckeck this bug, if in the directory users do not have their extension as their telephone number (if you use E.164,etc) , BLF won't work. No work around.

CSCtd74932 Bug Details

Enhancement: BLF and E.164 directory numbers.

In order for BLF to be displayed we need  to match EXACTLY the DN as configured in the DN admin pages of callmanager and  the telephone number as imported from the Active directory

Currently  there is no possibility to partially match telephone number that is configured  for example in E.164 format

This is a problem because most organizations  have the E.164 number configured in AD, which is imported to callmanager and  attendant console but the DN in callmanager is configured as 4 or 5  digits

The BLF will not work this  way


When AD has the full E.164 number  configured and the DN configured in callmanager is a partial match of the E.164  number


No known workaround

ybyuen2008 Wed, 11/02/2011 - 10:05

I got the BLF phone status problem ( in red cross ) under the attendant console server.

CUCM version : 8.6.2.a

Cisco Unified Business attendant console server version :

NO AD integartion in CUCM.

the End user tele phone field is the same as the dn in phone line setting.

reboot many time still cannot solve the problem.

My operator is an Extension mobility account.

any one has similar problem?

jason.aarons@us... Wed, 11/02/2011 - 10:07

Any other User Devices such CSF-XXXXXx or UPC-XXXXX they devices status are listed Alphabetically so a CUPC 8x device with device name CSF00001 would show line status before SEP00000000001.

Jason Aarons


Dimension Data

904-338-3245 mobile

ybyuen2008 Wed, 11/02/2011 - 10:15

I don't have soft phone. No share DN existed in the CUCM. it will not be the problem showing wrong line status for unregisted phone.

neilo Thu, 04/05/2012 - 02:45

I also have the same issue, we have CUCM V8.6.2, with CUEAC

We have AD integration, the DN is 4 digits in AD and in CUCM - match is identical.

However, the phone status on the majority of handsets has a red cross.  If I reboot the CUEAC server the issue goes but as soon as a user logs in after the reboot it does not change the phone status.  The only handset that shows the correct status is the DN used to login to CUEAC client.

Mikeb5555 Tue, 05/01/2012 - 06:06

I am having the same issues as above :

Call manager

Attendant console

The operator can still transfer call etc… even though  DN  has a red x on them.  What I found is that if  you logon to your Personal Communicator  the red x will go away because you are now registered.   But the confusing part for me- I  have DID’s in the 6000 range with no red x and  if you go to  the AC Client software -> In the phone, right click in the phone -> Contact details -> Contact Numbers -> Device name: xxxxxx. You will see the correct device, but if  do the same with one of the numbers that has a red X you will  see that is using  CSF device name.. 

so their got to be something more going on becsue the Numbers that are woking correctly are config  the same way the ones that has a red x.

I have had Cisco Tac working on this for a while now

Eric Hernandez Wed, 05/30/2012 - 17:49

My attendant Console is working properly for now, except for one little detail, we changed some of the ip phones (like 10 7940 ip phones to 8961)  and now those directory numbers always appear with the red cross and can't make them appear as the old ones used to look like (the BLF monitoring) i can make and transfer the calls to those DNs but the red X is always in the phone icon, is there something wrong with the 8961 and the attendant console?  I've checked the configuration of the old 7940 and the new 8961 and its the same.

CUCM is version 8.5.1

CUEAC version

ericmbavoice Thu, 12/12/2013 - 12:39

I got this to work by updating the RID.  Tideous process to update the DB so I'm not sure if this is what you want to try.

As a test I took one user and searched dbo.contact_numbers all users RID was empty.  I updated the db entry for that user and the red x was gone.


update dbo.Contact_Numbers


where Device_Number = 'XXXX'

off hook/on hook staus is now displayed in cueac



haouaswajih Wed, 12/18/2013 - 09:10

Dear Team,

If you have red x marks on the phones, please verify that the devices that you're monitoring are associated with the CUAC application user on CUCM.

Best Regards.

please rate if this helps.


Login or Register to take actions

This Discussion

Posted August 12, 2010 at 10:17 PM
Replies:10 Avg. Rating:
Views:6936 Votes:0

Related Content

Discussions Leaderboard