Cisco Support Community
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
New Member

CUCM Translation Pattern vs Phone/Line with CFA

I have a situation where a SIP trunk from a third party application provisioned with a CSS that only allowed internal calling needed to be expanded to allow it to reach one external PSTN destination.

The desired solution was to create a translation pattern/DN that was in a partition that the SIP trunk's CSS could reach but was configured with a CSS that allowed it to reach the desired external PSTN destination.

A direct call to that number from a phone demonstrate that it seemed to work; seeming to prove that the CSS is fine.

Use of the the third party application calling the translation pattern DN did not work.

I would see the call get to the IOS/H.323 gateway and route to the correct PRI and then fail with a 0x81FF Internetworking/Unknown error returned from the carrier (AT&T) when debugging isdn q931.

Removing the translation pattern and applying the same DN to a phone and configuring with an identical CSS (to that of the translation pattern) with a CFA to the same external PSTN number and performing the same two tests above resulted in success.  The gateway did not report any internetworking error.

I found that if I applied a voice translation-rule that conformed the outgoing redirect number to strip the 9 (access code) and 1 (LD) and pass the remaining number would allow the translation pattern to work successfully.

Both the translation-pattern and the phone/line forward seem to have a redirect of 91NPANXXXXXX unknown/unknown; but the PSTN carrier seems to reject this when a translation pattern is used unless the redirect number is conformed.

So finally to the question.

Why does the translation pattern behave differently than a line applied to a phone or CTI RP that has it's CFA set when the CSSs are identical?

CUCM 8.5-13900.

IOS 15.1(3)T

79XX series phones SCCP 9.1.1SR1

H.323 PSTN gateway


Everyone's tags (4)
CreatePlease to create content