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

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

PCA ignoring restriction tables

Has anyone seen this behaviour before in PCA? It would appear that PCA is ignoring the restrictions tables and allowing subscribers to enter any number they wish. I'm running Unity 4.0(2) and only have one set of restriction tables, all the same and modified from the default.

The restriction tables have the patterns:

Minimum digits allowed 1

Maximum digits allowed 30

1??? allowed yes

'* allowed no

Using PCA I can enter any number I wish e.g. 9123, on the 'Transfer Calls To' option on Unity Assistant and the number is taken and i ncoming calls will be transfered. However the same number is rejected when entered into SA when logged on as the same subscriber to SA. If usi ng the ActiveAssistant pages (servername/web/aa) the number is also correctly rejected.

I have completely uninstalled Unity and reinstalled straight to 4.0(2) but still have the same problem. Has anyone else seen this or can reproduce it ,or have I made a mistake somewhere?



Re: PCA ignoring restriction tables

I just reproduced this iss ue. I'll look for a bug and get one filed today if I can't find one. I'll update you with status later today.



Cisco Employee

Re: PCA ignoring restriction tables

Just a follow up on this – the DDTS record for this can be found at:

At the moment there are no release notes on it that are visible externally – there will be in the next day or so. Once a hot fix from the clients group is tested and available on 4.0(1) and 4.0(2) it’ll be included in there. Also, an updated version of dbWalker designed to test transfer numbers against the subscriber’s current restriction table (as well as their notification and fax delivery numbers) will be available for download off in a couple days – this information will also be added to the release notes for the bug.

Just to be clear, this only affects subscribers changing their transfer number from the PCA interface – it does not affect the phone conversation or the SA interfaces at all and can’t be exploited by external folks. Sites may choose to disable the PCA interface for their folks if they wish and they can use BulkEdit to force all transfer strings to be the subscriber’s extension if they’re concerned about this in the short term.

Once the hot fix is tested and ready to roll a field alert will be issued, the bug noted above will be updated and I’ll also include a note onto this thread to let folks know.