Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

CUCM 10.5 + MGCP VG Blocking 'Anonymous' calls

Hello to all.

I currently have a CUCM 10.5 installation with a 2921 VG configured with MGCP. 

The problem experienced is that when someone calls with hidden caller id, the provider sends the Calling Party Number as 'anonymous'.

This causes CUCM not to process the call and reject it.

The odd thing is that I have another customer with CUCM 5.X with a similar setup (MGCP VG & anonymous as the caller ID ) where calls are processed without a problem.

 

I've searched the forums and saw other experincing the same issue as we are, even with CUCM 7+, however no answer or solution was provided.

Changing to H323 is not an option at this point.

Any input would be highly appreciated.

 

Many thanks,

Chris.

2 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS

Accepted Solutions
Cisco Employee

in cucm Line page , check you

in cucm Line page , check you have checked "reject anonymous call" ?

Cisco Employee

device>phone>choose the line

device>phone>choose the line >

8 REPLIES

Hi Chris.Can you please send

Hi Chris.

Can you please send the output of a debug isn q931 and a debug mgcp packet?

 

Thanks

 

Regards

 

Carlo

Please rate all helpful posts "The more you help the more you learn"
New Member

Hello Carlo, Here is the

Hello Carlo,

 

Here is the output from the VG when dialing inwards through a phone with CallerID disabled.

 

I also just spoke with Cisco TAC and they have told me there is no current  work-around and that we need to change the VG to H323.

 

Please let me know if you have any suggestions.

 

Thanks,

Chris.

 

Nov  4 11:47:21.977: ISDN Se0/1/0:15 Q931: RX <- CONNECT pd = 8  callref = 0x9300
        Date/Time i = 0x0E0B040D2F15
                Date (dd-mm-yr)   = 14-11-04
                Time (hr:mnt:sec) = 13:47:21
Nov  4 11:47:21.985: ISDN Se0/1/0:15 Q931: TX -> CONNECT_ACK pd = 8  callref = 0x1300
VG2921#
Nov  4 11:47:24.413: ISDN Se0/1/0:15 Q931: RX <- SETUP pd = 8  callref = 0x15DC
        Sending Complete
        Bearer Capability i = 0x8090A3
                Standard = CCITT
                Transfer Capability = Speech  
                Transfer Mode = Circuit
                Transfer Rate = 64 kbit/s
        Channel ID i = 0xA98381
                Exclusive, Channel 1
        Calling Party Number i = 0x0180, 'anonymous'
                Plan:ISDN, Type:Unknown
        Called Party Number i = 0x81, '4321586251'
                Plan:ISDN, Type:Unknown
Nov  4 11:47:24.417: MGCP Packet received from 192.168.3.10:2427--->
CRCX 52335 S0/SU1/DS1-0/1@VG2921.cucm.local MGCP 0.1
C: D000000001ab4c5e000000F5800015dc
X: 1
L: p:20, a:PCMU, s:off, t:b8
M: recvonly
R: D/[0-9ABCD*#]
Q: process,loop
<---

VG2921#
Nov  4 11:47:24.421: MGCP Packet sent to 192.168.3.10:2427--->
200 52335 OK
I: 28B9

v=0
c=IN IP4 192.168.3.9
m=audio 21444 RTP/AVP 0 100
a=rtpmap:100 X-NSE/8000
a=fmtp:100 192-194
<---

Nov  4 11:47:24.425: ISDN Se0/1/0:15 Q931: TX -> CALL_PROC pd = 8  callref = 0x95DC
        Channel ID i = 0xA98381
                Exclusive, Channel 1
Nov  4 11:47:24.425: ISDN Se0/1/0:15 Q931: TX -> DISCONNECT pd = 8  callref = 0x95DC
        Cause i = 0x8095 - Call rejected
Nov  4 11:47:24.449: ISDN Se0/1/0:15 Q931: RX <- RELEASE pd = 8  callref = 0x15DC
Nov  4 11:47:24.449: MGCP Packet received from 192.168.3.10:2427--->

VG2921#DLCX 52336 S0/SU1/DS1-0/1@VG2921.cucm.local MGCP 0.1
C: D000000001ab4c5e000000F5800015dc
I: 28B9
X: 1
S:
<---

Nov  4 11:47:24.469: MGCP Packet sent to 192.168.3.10:2427--->
250 52336 OK
P: PS=0, OS=0, PR=0, OR=0, PL=0, JI=0, LA=0
<---

Nov  4 11:47:24.469: ISDN Se0/1/0:15 Q931: TX -> RELEASE_COMP pd = 8  callref = 0x95DC
VG2921#
Nov  4 11:47:40.401: MGCP Packet sent to 192.168.3.10:2427--->
NTFY 902475903 *@VG2921.cucm.local MGCP 0.1
X: 0
O:
<---

Nov  4 11:47:40.401: MGCP Packet received from 192.168.3.10:2427--->
200 902475903
<---

VG2921#
Nov  4 11:47:48.249: MGCP Packet received from 192.168.3.10:2427--->
MDCX 52337 S0/SU1/DS1-0/30@VG2921.cucm.local MGCP 0.1
C: D000000001ab4c4a000000F5000012fb
I: 28B3
X: 1e
M: recvonly
R: D/[0-9ABCD*#]
Q: process,loop
<---

Nov  4 11:47:48.249: MGCP Packet sent to 192.168.3.10:2427--->
200 52337 OK
<---

Nov  4 11:47:48.253: ISDN Se0/1/0:15 Q931: TX -> DISCONNECT pd = 8  callref = 0x12FB
        Cause i = 0x8090 - Normal call clearing
Nov  4 11:47:48.289: ISDN Se0/1/0:15 Q931: RX <- RELEASE pd = 8  callref = 0x92FB
        Cause i = 0x8190 - Normal call clearing
Nov  4 11:47:48.289: MGCP Packet received from 192.168.3.10:2427--->

VG2921#DLCX 52338 S0/SU1/DS1-0/30@VG2921.cucm.local MGCP 0.1
C: D000000001ab4c4a000000F5000012fb
I: 28B3
X: 1e
S:
<---

Nov  4 11:47:48.305: MGCP Packet sent to 192.168.3.10:2427--->
250 52338 OK
P: PS=5510, OS=881600, PR=5497, OR=879520, PL=0, JI=0, LA=0
<---

Nov  4 11:47:48.309: ISDN Se0/1/0:15 Q931: TX -> RELEASE_COMP pd = 8  callref = 0x12FB
VG2921#
Nov  4 11:47:54.449: MGCP Packet sent to 192.168.3.10:2427--->
NTFY 902475904 *@VG2921.cucm.local MGCP 0.1
X: 0
O:
<---

Nov  4 11:47:54.449: MGCP Packet received from 192.168.3.10:2427--->
200 902475904
<---

VG2921#

VIP Purple

Hi Chris, Is this the bug

Hi Chris,

 

Is this the bug which Cisco TAC has said?

 

regds,

aman

New Member

Aman, Cisco TAC hasn't flag

Aman,

 

Cisco TAC hasn't flag this is a 'bug', or at least not yet.

I did ask the engineer why remove such a feature which was apparently helping customers avoid these issues, but the enginner didn;'t have an answer for me.

By the looks of things, moving to H323 (if the telco provider can't do anything) is possibly the only option, unless someone else has a solution!

Thanks,

Cisco Employee

in cucm Line page , check you

in cucm Line page , check you have checked "reject anonymous call" ?

New Member

Javel, Thanks for your

Javel,

 

Thanks for your response. Can you please tell me where exactly I can find this option? 

 

Thank you.

Cisco Employee

device>phone>choose the line

device>phone>choose the line >

New Member

Javel, it worked!We can

Javel, it worked!

We can simply modify all extensions so that they accept anonymous calls and not bother changing the Gateway protocol!

 

Thanks so much for your help!

 

Chris.

412
Views
7
Helpful
8
Replies