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

Caller ID information is lost for async calls (possible bug?)

Hi,

We are trying to restrict modem calls to a few calling phone numbers using the 'dialer caller' command. We have a 3640 as RAS with PRI and digital modems (one NM-2CE1 and one NM-30DM network module) and IOS version 12.2(17a). With ISDN calls, the 'dialer caller' command is working properly, binding the incoming calls to the appropriate dialer profile, but with modem calls the caller ID information is lost when the calls are transferred to Async interfaces, so the binding to the dialer profile is based only on the username (PPP name), and even if the call is made from a different phone number from the one that is configured in the 'dialer caller' command inside the dialer profile with the appropriate username (configured in the 'dialer remote-name' command) the call succeeds. Should it be this the right router operation, is there a problem with the configuration or is it a bug in the IOS?

I attach an extract of the configuration and some debugging results below.

Regards,

Carlos.

username xxxx password 7 xxxxxxxxxxxx

controller E1 1/0

pri-group timeslots 1-31

interface Loopback2

ip address 172.26.47.129 255.255.255.128

interface Serial1/0:15

no ip address

encapsulation ppp

isdn switch-type primary-net5

isdn incoming-voice modem

no cdp enable

interface Group-Async1

no ip address

encapsulation ppp

dialer in-band

dialer pool-member 202

async mode dedicated

ppp callback accept

ppp authentication chap callin

group-range 65 94

interface Dialer112

ip unnumbered Loopback2

encapsulation ppp

dialer pool 202

dialer remote-name sagf2cba

dialer idle-timeout 600

dialer caller 915555555

dialer-group 1

peer default ip address 172.26.47.162

no cdp enable

ppp authentication chap callin

line 65 94

flush-at-activation

modem InOut

autoselect during-login

autoselect ppp

-------------------

Feb 23 14:56:02 CET: ISDN Se1/0:15: Incoming call id = 0x00DE, dsl 0

Feb 23 14:56:02 CET: ISDN Se1/0:15: NegotiateBchan: bchan 2 intid 0 serv_st 0 chan_st 0 callid 0x0000 ev 0x90 n/w? 0

Feb 23 14:56:02 CET: Negotiated int_id 0 bchan 0 cr=0x8019 callid=0x00DE lo_chan 2 final int_id/bchan 0/2 cause 0x0

Feb 23 14:56:02 CET: ISDN Se1/0:15: LIF_EVENT: ces/callid 1/0xDE CALL_INCOMING

Feb 23 14:56:02 CET: ISDN Se1/0:15: CALL_INCOMING: call type is VOICE ALAW, bchan = 1

Feb 23 14:56:02 CET: ISDN Se1/0:15: Event: Received a VOICE call from 915555555 on B1 at 64 Kb/s

Feb 23 14:56:02 CET: AAA/ACCT/DS0: channel=1, ds1=0, t3=0, slot=1, ds0=16777217

Feb 23 14:56:02 CET: ISDN Se1/0:15: VOICE_ANS Event: call id 0xDE, bchan 1, ces 1

Feb 23 14:56:02 CET: ISDN Se1/0:15: isdn_send_connect(): msg 74, call id 0xDE, ces 0 bchan 1, call type VOICE

Feb 23 14:56:02 CET: ISDN Se1/0:15: LIF_EVENT: ces/callid 1/0xDE CALL_PROGRESS

Feb 23 14:56:02 CET: Modem 2/27 Mica: configured for Answer mode, with Null signaling, 0x0 tone detection.

Feb 23 14:56:02 CET: Modem 2/27 Mica: in modem state CALL_SETUP

Feb 23 14:56:03 CET: Modem 2/27 Mica: in modem state CONNECT

Feb 23 14:56:08 CET: Modem 2/27 Mica: in modem state LINK

Feb 23 14:56:08 CET: %ISDN-6-CONNECT: Interface Serial1/0:1 is now connected to 915555555

Feb 23 14:56:16 CET: Modem 2/27 Mica: in modem state TRAINUP

Feb 23 14:56:17 CET: Modem 2/27 Mica: in modem state EC_NEGOTIATING

Feb 23 14:56:18 CET: Modem 2/27 Mica: in modem state STEADY

Feb 23 14:56:18 CET: Modem 2/27 Mica: CONNECT at 33600/31200 (Tx/Rx), V34+, LAPM, V42bis

Feb 23 14:56:18 CET: TTY92: DSR came up

Feb 23 14:56:18 CET: TTY92: no timer type 1 to destroy

Feb 23 14:56:18 CET: TTY92: no timer type 0 to destroy

Feb 23 14:56:18 CET: TTY92: no timer type 2 to destroy

Feb 23 14:56:18 CET: tty92: Modem: IDLE->(unknown)

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 LCP: I CONFREQ [Closed] id 1 len 50

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 LCP: ACCM 0x00000000 (0x020600000000)

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 LCP: MagicNumber 0x1B9F42F3 (0x05061B9F42F3)

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 LCP: PFC (0x0702)

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 LCP: ACFC (0x0802)

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 LCP: Callback 6 (0x0D0306)

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 LCP: MRRU 1614 (0x1104064E)

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 LCP: EndpointDisc 1 Local

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 LCP: (0x131701748789F4B1E348019858DFB25C)

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 LCP: (0xE5308D00000000)

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 LCP: Lower layer not up, Fast Starting

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 PPP: Using dialer call direction

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 PPP: Treating connection as a callin

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 PPP: Phase is ESTABLISHING, Passive Open [0 sess, 0 load]

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 LCP: State is Listen

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: AAA/ACCT/DS0: channel=1, ds1=0, t3=0, slot=1, ds0=16777217

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 AAA/AUTHOR/FSM: (0): LCP succeeds trivially

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: Modem 2/27 Mica: PPP escape_map: Tx map = FFFFFFFF, Rx map = 0

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 LCP: O CONFREQ [Listen] id 15 len 25

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 LCP: ACCM 0x000A0000 (0x0206000A0000)

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 LCP: AuthProto CHAP (0x0305C22305)

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 LCP: MagicNumber 0x40986BDC (0x050640986BDC)

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 LCP: PFC (0x0702)

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 LCP: ACFC (0x0802)

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 LCP: O CONFREJ [Listen] id 1 len 8

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 LCP: MRRU 1614 (0x1104064E)

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Async92, changed state to up

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 DDR: Dialer statechange to up

Feb 23 14:56:20 CET: As92 DDR: Dialer received incoming call from <unknown>

2 REPLIES
Bronze

Re: Caller ID information is lost for async calls (possible bug?

I have not heard of any particular bug like this, you can have a look into the bug tool kit for more details .

New Member

Re: Caller ID information is lost for async calls (possible bug?

I had already searched for any related bug into the Bug Toolkit and I have just did it again but I haven't found something yet.

Thanks for your attention,

Carlos

117
Views
0
Helpful
2
Replies