cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Announcements
Walkthrough Wednesdays
1069
Views
4
Helpful
4
Replies
Dominic Zeni
Contributor

E.164 Directory Numbers and Mobile Connect

Hey all,

Running CUCM 9.1.1.10000-11 and I think I found a bug - or at least it appears that way.  I was setting up mobile connect for the client, which I've done a thousand times in non-E.164 DN environments, and I ran into a problem with the mobility soft key.  Whenever the mobility soft key is pressed the display tells me "MobileConnect Off" and "No Mobile Remote Destination found".  This didn't make sense to me as calls to the extension would successfully ring out to the remote destination, I could answer on the remote destination, and I could hang up on the mobile and resume on the IP phone.  After banging my head against the wall for an hour or so, I decided to pull some traces.  I found this in the trace file immediately after the mobility soft key was pressed.

|AppInfo  |DbMobilityHelper::SelectByUserIdAndDn - Can't build numplanlist given sharedLineDn [+17203874965] and sharedLinePartition [237fc3fa-b980-4600-f4ed-696c6c630d16]

Hmnn...so I double checked that the shared line was indeed correct between the RDP and the IP phone.  Then I decided to remove the \+ from my directory number to test.  After I did this the mobility soft key immediately began working on the IP phone.      

I looked through the release notes and couldn't find any documented caveats for this. 

Has anyone else ran into this?  Going to open a TAC case and see what they say.

Thanks,

Dom

4 REPLIES 4
Dominic Zeni
Contributor

TAC notified me that a bug has already been filed for this; CSCud88503.  Only affects version 9.1.1.10000-11.  They have an ES with this patched.

It is weried bug, because mobility is working for ages.

Anas

Axel Pichelmann
Beginner

Hi all,

I had the same issue with CUCM version 9.1.1.20000-5. Do you know why this defect is not fixed in this version, because the first fix was in 9.1(1.11001.1)!

Thanks,

regards,

Axel

Hi,

I confirm, I'm facing the same problem with 9.1.1.20000-5 , Cisco TAC provided me an ES version:  9.1.1.21018-1, supposed to have the fix. Not yet tested because waiting for maintenance windows.


Content for Community-Ad

Spotlight Awards 2021