Inbound calls fail from Single Number Reach (SNR) Remote destination - CUCM gives SIP 480

[Erick Bergquist]

Hello,

CUCM 10.5.2 SU1 

I have a situation with some single number reach users infrequently, where out of the blue they no longer can call inbound to our system from their cell phone if it is same number as their single number reach, remote destination number.

In the CUBE debugs, Call Manager is sending a SIP 480 Temporarily not Avalable message back on the INVITE message received from all CUCM servers we have in the dial peers.  If the user does a *67 and blocks their Caller ID the call comes in the CUCM fine and answers.

If we disable SNR on the users DN and re-enable SNR for the users DN it clears the issue for a undetermined period of time, but in a few months, etc the issue reoccurs.

Has anyone seen this before?  I looked through the 10.5.2 SU2 release notes and not finding any bugs for this behavior and looked at bug search as well. 

Regards,

Erick

[zpclapsadle]

Erick - 

Did you ever find a solution to this issue?

We are running CUCM 8.6.2 and am experiencing the exact same issue, except calls always fail as soon as the mobile number is configured for SNR.  Removing the line association immediately allows the calls to work from the cell phone into CUCM.  I have other users configured with the exact same settings (and the other users have the same Cell Provider) and this is only failing for one user.  *67 does allow the call to come into CUCM as well, but that isn't a viable solution IMO as calls then show up as "unavailable" or "anonymous".  

All other SNR functionality works correctly for this particular user.  

Thanks,

- Zach 

[Prashant Sharma]

Erick,

This seems to be a Bug, that you are hitting. Its basically a SNRD reject the call, and call control layer drop the call. You can call Cisco TAC for the Bug detail. Restarting CCM is a temporary fix, for permanent solution you can upgrade your CUCM to fix version. 

[edguidry]

Hello.  I am running into this issue.   Do you happen to know the Bug number?

Thanks,

Eddie