CUCM wrong number displayed on outgoing calls

[NazgulNr5]

Sorry for this probably very basic question but I have very little experience with VOICE stuff.

The problem is that our CUCM transmits a wrong number to the receiver of an outgoing call. On internal calls the number to dial is 55XX while on outgoing calls the transmitted number should be <our_number>XX (without the 55). But the CUCM still includes the 55. I understand there there is like a mask applied to the number on outgoing calls but I have no idea where I can find it in the GUI.

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

[Mike_Brezicky]

There are multiple places that it can be applied. You may need to check all.
The field you generally want to check is Calling Party Transform Mask.

1 - Calling Party Transformation Pattern
2 - Translation Pattern
3 - Route Pattern
4 - Route List - Detals.

A good place to start would be the Dialed Number Analyzer. Enter the calling number, called number, and CSS to see where CUCM is pushing the mask.

[NazgulNr5]

Thank you for the quick reply!

With the Dialed Number Analyzer I found the Route List that is used and it says Use Calling Party's External Phone Number Mask. But I cannot find this External Phone Number Mask anywhere. I found a tutorial and according to that it is on the Directory Number Configuration page - only it is not?

[Mike_Brezicky]

What is the base DN configuration - are they only set as 55XX, or are they configured as <our_number>XX.

If you are not seeing any Calling Party Translations added, you might need to add the mask to the DN, or add the Calling Party Translation on the route list in order to get it to appear how you want.

[NazgulNr5]

The DN Configuration has 55XX listed in the Directory Number* field.

I also found the External Phone Number Mask but it is listed under each line (on the menue Device->Phone->line link on the top left). The mask looks correct like <our_numer>xx.

Ah wait, on the Route List Detail Configuration the 'Use Calling Party's External Phone Number Mask' is set to default. Does this has to be switched to on?

[TONY SMITH]

You can set "Use Calling Party's External Phone Number Mask" on Route Patterns and Translation Patterns.  On the Route List a setting of "Default" means use whatever was set on the preceding route pattern.  Setting "On" or "Off" over rides the route pattern setting.

[NazgulNr5]

I think I might have found the problem. The box 'Use External Number Mask' is not checked under the route pattern. As it is set to 'default' on the route list I guess it is not applied. I'll try to change it later, because if I do it now and phone calls get disconnected I will probably be murdered. :-)

[NazgulNr5]

So, I tried setting 'Use External Number Mask' to 'on' on the route list but this discarded the last four digits (internal number) and not just two.

When I tried to check the box on the route pattern, the Call Manager said 'Authorization Code not activated' and something about Forced Authorization Codes.

Anyone got an idea what might be wrong?

[TONY SMITH]

---

@NazgulNr5 wrote:

When I tried to check the box on the route pattern, the Call Manager said 'Authorization Code not activated' and something about Forced Authorization Codes.

Anyone got an idea what might be wrong?

---

Don't worry about that message, it's just warning that FAC hasn't been selected.  A pretty stupid message really as FAC is not that commonly used.  Just press OK on that, and if it says something about resetting the route list then press OK on that as well.   Exit the route pattern and go back into it to confirm your external number mask tick was saved if you want to make sure.

If you're still getting unexpected behaviour, try using Dialled Number Analyzer and see what number manipulations it says should happen at each stage.

And of course check your number masks are correct on the calling line.

[NazgulNr5]

Hi again,

So I tried again with the External Phone Number Mask selected under the route pattern but still no good.

I did the Analyzer again and under Call Flow it says 'External Phone Number Mask = NO'

Any ideas where I'm losing the number mask?

[TONY SMITH]

What's the exact sequence of call routing here?  Your DNA output shows it matching a Translation Pattern in the first instance, is that correct?  Conventionally I'd expect that Call Flow sequence to show a Route Pattern first, followed by Route List

Check your external number mask on the actual calling line appearance as well while you're at it.

[NazgulNr5]

Edit: Ah, I think I changed the config on the wrong route pattern. There is [1-9]! and 0[1-9]! - I changed the first but the second one is used.

I'll try it out later when there are no calls and report back. Sorry for the confusion...

I have checked the number that is displayed under Device->Phone->Line and it shows the number transformed correctly.

Yes, there is also a Route List and Route Group stated in the Analyzer. I have erased the names from the picture becaise they include the company name but it lists the correct group and list. Here is the screenshot:

[TONY SMITH]

I'd start by checking each item used in routing of that call, which in your case looks like Translation Pattern first, then Route Pattern then Route List.  Check external number mask at each stage.  Check also the partitions shown in DNA to make sure your call is hitting the patterns you expect it to be using.

I've seen DNA sometimes get it wrong, but I've never seen the external number function not work in reality if correctly configured.

If still stuck you could create a new Route Pattern, set a new test CSS that only sees that pattern, and apply that to a phone for test purposes.

[NazgulNr5]

Okay, when I check the box for 'Use Calling Party's External Phone Number Mask' on the route pattern it omits the last four digits not the last two. I get the same result when I set 'Use Calling Party's External Phone Number Mask' to 'on' on the Route List page.

Is there a place where this External Phone Number Mask is configured to be used when those boxes/drop down selections are used? Like where you enter it once for the whole system? Because it looks as if the mask is configured wrong (like XXXX instead of XX) but I cannot find it.

[TONY SMITH]

We're kind of hampered by not seeing your actual numbers.  Can you show a screenshot of the external mask setting on the calling line appearance, but over-write the number you want to hide with a series of "Y" or something so we can see number of digits, and distinct from the "X" that has an actual meaning.

Also screenshot of the calling number settings on the Translation Pattern

And screenshot of setting on the Route Pattern.

Edit:  What do you mean by "omits the last four digits"?  Number masks don't omit digits from the end, they filter which are passed through, optionally omitting from the beginning.   A mask of "X" will pass the last digit, unchanged, and no others.