×

Warning message

  • Cisco Support Forums is in Read Only mode while the site is being migrated.
  • Cisco Support Forums is in Read Only mode while the site is being migrated.

9+ Dialing from Call History (missed & answered calls)

Unanswered Question
Aug 10th, 2011
User Badges:

Many of us use the CALL HISTORY | RECEIVED CALLS or MISSED CALLS feature built into the SPA525G2 phone.


In its default configuration, in order to return a call, each user has to go through he time consuming and unnecessary process of pressing EDIT DIAL, 9, then DIAL to return a call.


I had fixed this with some type of CLI programming at one point to append a 9 to the record of all calls, but I cant remember how I did it.


Now I am not even sure if that is the best method, because it might break something else.


There is a new "feature in CCA 3.1 DIAL PLAN | CALL BACK RULES, but it is poorly documented as to what it does, it doesn't have any effect when configured, AND the STAC advised me not to use it because it doesn't do anything.


Below is the CLI changes made by STAC today, which also do not fix the issue. Im waiting on a call back to make another attempt at solving the problem.


Is an outbound translation, inbound translation or the CALL BACK rules the best way to solve this common issue?


This scripting seems kind of clueless because in DC, we have mandatory 10 digit calling and at least 5 local area codes. The STAC could not explain why it was necessary to include a 301 translation if all calls were 10 digits and 703, 202, 240, etc are also local area codes - so I think they didn't really understand what they were doing.


Here is what they did, which didnt work;


en
config t
voice tr
vocie translation rule 3000
rule 1 /\(^301.......$\)/ /9
rule 2 /\(^...........$\)/ /9\1/
translation-profile incoming INCOMING_CallerID_PROFILE
voice translation-profile INCOMING_CallerID_PROFILE translate calling 3000

exit
voice translation-profile INCOMING_CALLerID_PROFILE
translate calling 3000
end


config t
voice-port 0/1/0
translation-profile incoming INCOMING_CallerID_PROFILE
exit
voice-port 0/1/1
translation-profile incoming INCOMING_CallerID_PROFILE
exit
voice-port 0/1/2
translation-profile incoming INCOMING_CallerID_PROFILE
exit
voice-port 0/1/3
translation-profile incoming INCOMING_CallerID_PROFILE
exit
voice-port 0/2/0
translation-profile incoming INCOMING_CallerID_PROFILE
exit
voice-port 0/2/1
translation-profile incoming INCOMING_CallerID_PROFILE
exit

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
David Trad Wed, 08/10/2011 - 15:05
User Badges:
  • Gold, 750 points or more
  • Cisco Designated VIP,

    2013 Small Business

Hi Brooke,


If you are using CCA 3.1 (Highly Recommended) then you an tap into the new feature called "Call Back Rules" (See screen shot below). I use this feature now to control this and was happy then a pig in a Penn when they released this, it got a lot of clients of my back with taking away the manual process


Have a look at the screen shot:



You might need to add multiple rules covering off the different dial-plan lengths, and also if you want extra numbers added in just in case the carrier does any striping away of digits.


Hope this helps you out.



Cheers,



David.

Brook Powers Wed, 08/10/2011 - 15:13
User Badges:

Per my post, STAC has told me it doesnt work and my own experience has not produced any useful results.


Can you provide more information?


I added the "9" prefix to 10,and 11 digit calls (301-555-1212 & 1-301-555-1212) like this;


Calling Number Length Match      Prefix to add

10                                             9

11                                              9

12                                              9


No luck.

David Trad Wed, 08/10/2011 - 15:48
User Badges:
  • Gold, 750 points or more
  • Cisco Designated VIP,

    2013 Small Business

Hi Brooke,


I don't know what to say... I am confused as to why STAC would say that nonsense


Since upgrading to SWP 8.2 and CCA 3.1 I have been using this feature and use it on all deployments and it works wonders...


Are you running Software Pack 8.2 on this system??


It's this that has me a little baffled and I must not have read it properly..


There is a new "feature in CCA 3.1 DIAL PLAN | CALL BACK RULES, but it  is poorly documented as to what it does, it doesn't have any effect when  configured, AND the STAC advised me not to use it because it doesn't do  anything.


When you apply this in CCA a Dialogue box appears and displays to you what configuration was applied and in some cases what was removed, it is directly applied to translation rules and profiles though but I am not convinced it settles there.



This is part of the rules that CCA pplies when enabling this feature, keeping in mind that here in Australia we use "0" to dial out not "9"


voice translation-rule 3265

rule 1 /\(^..........$\)/ /00\1/

rule 2 /\(^........$\)/ /0\1/

rule 3 /\(^.........$\)/ /0\1/

rule 15 /\(^ABCD$\)/ /ABCD\1/


I have more than one rule, just in case more than one leading digit is cut by the carrier, so I have a 00 and 0 rule in place (1 and 2) rule 3 is for Fixed lines 1 and 2 are for Mobiles as our mobiles here in Australia start with a "0"


voice translation-profile PRI11_Called_18

translate calling 3265

translate called 18


Now the tricky part, since this client has a 100 number In-Dial, the 3265 translation is replicated across all the translation profiles, and in this instance far too many for me to list. This is then also replicated across the dial-peers, for instance here is a DP example of this...


dial-peer voice 3034 pots

description Reception-Group-BG

translation-profile incoming Reception-Group-BG_Called_18

incoming called-number 3XXXXXX[0-2]

direct-inward-dial

port 0/3/0:15

The translation profile applied means that any rules within the translation profile/rule are applied this inclusive of the adding the leading/steering digits.


I hope I haven't confused the situation more for you and this does help... Alternatively if you are not running SWP 8.2 you should consider it, maybe this feature only works properly with 8.2, I don't know never tested it on the previous version and the rules on the previous version never worked or were not honored.


Let us know if you need further info and I will dig deeper and find it for you



Cheers,


David.

bill.roland Wed, 08/10/2011 - 19:21
User Badges:

FWIW, I can confirm, as David mentioned, that I have used CCA 3.1 to enable Call Back Rules to add a 9, and it works fine for me.  It essentially just adds a 9 to the incoming caller ID, so that when you go to the missed calls and select one and hit dial, its ready to go.


One thing that is interesting is that our box is setup for 7 digit dial and previously 10 digit dialing didn't work (I heard about it from somebody who moved here from a 10 digit dial area).  Now, it does, at least when you pull up a missed or received call and just hit "dial."  Too bad I didn't pay more attention to what CCA sent to the box when I enabled the feature.

lgaughan Thu, 08/11/2011 - 13:34
User Badges:

It looks like CCA Call back rules work when combined with CCA  Incoming Dial Plans for Direct Dialing (PRI, BRI, SIP) but not for FXO  (CCA configures connection plar on the voice-port for this case, no  dial-peer or translation-profile is created).  That is probably why STAC  is trying to give configuration on the voice-port since it looks  like CCA is not taking care of it there. 


Laura

CraigSmiff Wed, 08/10/2011 - 23:15
User Badges:

Just to confirm that I have used the new call back feature in CCA 3.1 and it works perfectly. Appends the incoming CLI with the digit that we use to access a outside line.


Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPad App

lgaughan Thu, 08/11/2011 - 13:34
User Badges:

Are these FXO ports? What does the rest of your voice-port configuration look like?


Laura

Brook Powers Thu, 08/11/2011 - 13:43
User Badges:

Working with the STAC today, we figured out that there are issues with CALL BACK rules when you only have POTS lines. They were able to duplicate it in the lab.


This configuration utilizes 6 POTs lines in a CLEC managed hunt group.


Also, the CLEC states they provide CallerID on the main line and that it is not required on the other lines in the hunt group  becuase it rolls over with the calls. Im not sure yet if thats true or not and if it contributed to the issue.


With some manual CLI wizardry from Lindsay in the STAC, it appears to be working now.

David Trad Thu, 08/11/2011 - 18:52
User Badges:
  • Gold, 750 points or more
  • Cisco Designated VIP,

    2013 Small Business

Hi Brooke,


Thanks heaps for the update


It would seem I am left eating humble pie (For having a go at STAC) so I must apologies to them first, in haste I didn't realize that it was an FXO issue (I looked at the voice ports and assumed BRI), and as such earlier this morning when I worked this up on the LAB system, it produced the same results, turns out the only way I could do it was via CLI and it is an ugly and messy way, which I must point out that it did not play very nice with CCA.


I rarely do FXO anymore (Only on the UC-320W) I am quite adamant about the sales guys selling an FXO system and there is a huge push by me to migrate them to either BRI or PRI ISDN services, analogue is just not worth the hassles, and a consequences of that is I do not get much play time in CCA with analogue services... Did I mention I hate FXO bases services???


I am really happy you got a resolution to the problem, and I hope the CLI work can still work with CCA, as mine didn't, also when a group of POTS services are hunted at the exchange level, the number presentation should be the same when the lines are rotated, it would only change if the auxiliary line is called directly and not hunted too (Well that is how it works here with our incumbent anyway).




Cheers.



David.

lgaughan Thu, 08/11/2011 - 19:18
User Badges:

Brooke,

Do you have a case number?  I would like to get this feedback into CCA that FXO should be supported as well by this feature.


Thanks!


Laura

lgaughan Thu, 08/11/2011 - 19:24
User Badges:

Brook,

No worries, got them already. 


Thanks for bringing the issue to our attention.


Laura

Actions

This Discussion

Related Content