cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
785
Views
0
Helpful
4
Replies
Beginner

Caller ID Name routing out SIP Trunks

We have two SIP Trunks for our org. When I route a call out one of the CUBE routers, the caller ID Name on the receiving end is whatever we have published with our phone company. For example, the called party will see 303-555-1111 as My Business Inc.

 

On the other hand, when I route the same number/phone out the other CUBE router, the caller ID name shows up with my Internal Caller ID name from Call Manager. I can fix it by removing the internal name, but that isn't an option since I want my internal caller ID info. Telco is telling me it is my problem. I sent them a SIP Message call setup and I am showing them that my outbound call is sending them the exact same information out each SIPT. For example, calls out this trunk are showing the caller ID 303-555-1111 as the employee name, not My Business Inc.

 

I messed around with the Caller ID name presentation on the router patterns, but could not get anything to work properly. Ultimately, I need the caller ID number to be displayed to called party w/o my internal names.

 

Is there something  I can do? I am on CCM 10.5.

Everyone's tags (1)
4 REPLIES 4
Advisor

Greetings, Can you capture

Greetings,

 

Can you capture and post debug log messages from your CUBE devices? Specifically, enable "debug ccsip mess" on both CUBE devices and send your egress test calls through the devices. 

 

We need to confirm if both CUBEs are sending the exact same SIP messages to your carrier. We'll need to see more than just the INVITE message.

 

Thanks,
Bill

HTH -Bill (b) http://ucguerrilla.com (t) @ucguerrilla

Please remember to rate helpful responses and identify

Rising star

Greetings,Yes, Bill's

Greetings,

Yes, Bill's suggestion is the way, I would also want to get go.

We definitely need more info what is happening.

More over, on the first sight, it appears that it is a telco related issue, however it can be only verified after taking a look at the logs

Regards

Highlighted
Beginner

I'll get you the SIP messages

I'll get you the SIP messages. I have to track ppl down with landlines nowadays to confirm what they are seeing. BTW, when I call a TN on my SIPT carrier network, the caller ID name displays properly. Then, when calling other landlines the caller ID name varies.

Thanks!

Beginner

Here was the email I sent to

Here was the email I sent to provider with the same logs/file compares: I just have the logs inside of a file compare. I can send the actual logs if preferred.

 

The tech and I made some test calls. I attached the logs and compared them between calls that worked and calls that didn’t. There are two logs. I disabled the “remote party ID” in our call manager which did create different results which is what you will see in the second report. However, the results still tell me that  something out there is treating these 2 masked numbers very differently. Our SIP calls are setting up exactly the same. Same route patterns, same CCM trunks and same CUBE trunks.

 

The HTML file “callTest-1.html” shows the exact same call between the tech and I with different masked numbers.

We toggled the mask between 720-874-3151 and 303-795-4600.

When we send the mask number ending in 3151, caller ID displays “John Doe”, which is what we have configured for our internal caller ID name.

When we send the mask number ending in 4600, caller ID displays “Our Company Name”, which has to be coming from a system outside of our control

*John Doe is still our internal ID Name during both calls

 

 

 

The HTML file “callTest-2.html” shows the exact same call between the tech and I with different masked numbers and “remote party ID” disabled in Call Manager.

We toggled the mask between 720-874-3151 and 303-795-4600.

When we send the mask number ending in 3151, caller ID displays “anonymous”, which must be because the remote party ID field is blank now.

When we send the mask number ending in 4600, caller ID displays “Our Company Name”, which again has to be coming from a system outside of our control.

 

Our settings that generated the results for report 2 are just to demonstrate the differences how the mask being sent is treated differently. We can’t leave these settings in place since we do not want all calls showing up as anonymous.

CreatePlease to create content
Content for Community-Ad
August's Community Spotlight Awards