cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
2690
Views
0
Helpful
9
Replies

Call park does not work

dsalamanca
Level 1
Level 1

hello,

I am trying to configure call park in a CUCM cluster 7.1.5. I am aware that there is a bug (CSCsl70911) that prevents calls from being parked. The scenario is this:

- Internal calls can be parked, but not external calls

- External calls enter through a MGCP Gateway, registered to CUCM server "A", phones trying to capture these calls are also registered to this server "A", and call park numbers are configured for the same server "A" as well.

- Call park numbers are in a partition P_CPark, MGCP GW has this partition included in its CSS and the phones also, as well as the DNs.

I have read about this workaround, but it's for H.323 GWs, haven't found any for MGCP GWs:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/voicesw/ps556/products_tech_note09186a0080b39138.shtml

Any help about what can be wrong? Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks in advance

Daniel

9 Replies 9

Jaime Valencia
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

Are the call park numbers UNIQUE within your whole dial plan??

Does the same happen to an IP phone to IP Phone call??

HTH

java

If this helps, please rate

www.cisco.com/go/pdihelpdesk

HTH

java

if this helps, please rate

Hello Jaime,

Thanks for your answer.

Yes, there are 3 ranges: 700X, 701X and 702X, every range is in a different server A, B and C.

Internal calls can be parked without problems, the issue is with calls coming from the MGCP GW only.

Regards,

tobin hawkshaw
Level 1
Level 1

Can you try putting the ranges on all servers and give it another go, you will have to trick CUCM into taking them though as they need to be in the same partition.

i.e.

server 1: 700X

server 2: 700[1-9]

server 3: 700[123456789]

I'd particulary like to see if the calls then park and if you have a problem with retrieval.

In the end I have deleted all ranges and let only 700X on server A, where all the implied devices are.

On the first try it worked but in the second it didn't, so I think I have to knock TACs door.

Did you configure the proper CUCM Group which contains only server A on the GW configuration under CCMAdmin ?

Pierre.

Hello Pierre,

Thanks for answering.

The GW had configured a group with all 3 CUCMs A, B and C inside, but A was the first option. Nevertheless I just created a new one only with that CUCM server A and assigned that group to the GW as you suggested and it didn't work. Of course I performed a software reset after changing it but it doesn't want to work. :-(

Regards,

Daniel

Hi Daniel!

Should not be that complicated!

All the suggestions made above if configured properly should have fixed it.

i think u need a second pair of eyes on the configuration, may be a small thing that you are missing!

Open a tac case so that we can double check the configuration.

You could also pull up a call manager trace from all the servers with the screen shots of the configuration.

Cheers!

Kunal

Also have one more suggestion, can you create a new partition for the park range that is configured only for server A, and then put that partition in the CSS of the phone parking the calls, remove the partition  P_CPark for testing, so that there is only range to look at for cucm!

Do let me know how it goes!

HTH

Kunal

Hello Kunal,

I am attaching some screenshots, I already created one partition only assigned to call park range of server A, (deleted all the other ranges for B and C server) the inbound CSS of the GW, and the 3 phones that should capture the call.

Another colleague checked the configuration and agrees that it's ok, but nevertheless I agree that shouldn't be so difficult. Maybe we need to restart the CCM service?

On the attachments:

MCS-Subscriber1 = Server A, and its IP address finishes in .245

CSS_Admin_ZG_Secretarias = CSS for phones that need to park calls

CSS_Gateways_Inbound_Admin_ZG = CSS for the GW that processes the inbound call

Please check it out, and if does not work I will request to open a case.

Regards and thanks for your replies.

Daniel