CUCM 9.1 caller ID

[jack samuel]

Hello,

I have assigned old employees extension to new employees, the extension are no more assigned to the old employees name, still the callers are complaining that their caller id is not correct,

where things are going wrong.

thanks

[Suresh Hudda · Accepted solution]

How many subscribers you have ? are you facing this issue for specific phones which are registered to a particular subscriber ? Is dpreplication is fine at all callmanager nodes ?

Try to remove a problematic directory number (ext) from route plan report and see if it present there as unassigned DN, if yes remove that also and then create it again and check.

Suresh

[jack samuel]

Hello,

How many subscribers you have ? 3 no's are you facing this issue for specific phones which are registered to a particular subscriber ? NO Is dpreplication is fine at all callmanager nodes ? it is perfect all are in NO:2

Try to remove a problematic directory number (ext) from route plan report and see if it present there as unassigned DN, if yes remove that also and then create it again and check.

I tried the above solution and it found conflict of Directory which were also used as 200 and #200, can you tell me what is the use of #200, what it make sense creating apart from the normal DN (200), before deleting #200 I want to confirm from experts

for 1 more user there is still problem exist as described below ext:

DN 300 --user B in Internal, when anybody dial DN 300 it shld displayed a user B but it is displaying user C, while the user C extension is 500.

Thanks

[Suresh Hudda]

It is difficult to tell you the purpose of #200 without looking at dial plan. But if you dont use it as a access code then you can take snap shot of it and delete it for a while and then test or otherwise you can assign another extension to the user.

2nd user problem; Can you try removing DN 300 & 500 and both phone devices and then check.

Or please attach cucm logs for a test call (from different ext -> 300).

Suresh

[jack samuel]

Hello,

Or please attach cucm logs for a test call (from different ext -> 300).

How can you guide please.

Thanks

[Suresh Hudda]

Dear, Let me understand it little bit more, when someone (lets says e.g. 301) make call to 300 then 301'user see the information of 500'user on his\her phone, am i correct  ? If this is happening for only one user, if yes then I would suggest to you to recreate that. And if you are facing this issue for more users then we should see cucm logs.

Make a test call from e.g. 301 to 300 and collect cucm logs as described below.

Take the sdi logs from RTMT for last 5 minutes and plz attach. Login into rtmt using cucm credentials and go to > Trace and log central (under callmanager) >  Collect files > Select call manager where these phones registered currently and pull the logs for last 5 minutes.

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/service/6_0_1/rtmt/rtmt601/rttlc.html

Suresh

[jack samuel]

Hi

Attached are the logs,

yes you are correct the call goes to proper destination but the name displays is of ext 500.

Thanks

[Suresh Hudda]

Please mention the calling and called number and names associated with them.

Suresh

[jack samuel]

Sorry forgot to mentioned

calling number 400 and called number 407 ( on phone 400 it shows wrong information for user 407, it shows different name and not the actual name of user 407)

[Suresh Hudda]

Dear, Please let me know what information it shows on 400 when dialing 407.

As per logs, caller is 208 and called party is 407.

Are you seeing below info on 400 phone ? If yes then plz check any translation pattern related to 407.

Name= IPTTEST1 & Number=208

What Phone model of 400, 407 & 208 ?

Suresh

[jack samuel]

Dear suresh,

I tried by the hard phones and the information is proper, the problem is with Jabber for windows, they are displaying wrong information.

so need to troubleshoot more in jabber logs

Thanks