Messages Button gives a menu instead of calling VM

[coop1]

When pressing the messages button (UCM and CUC v12.5), the user gets a menu with "Voice Mail" being option 1. When you press 1, it goes to the sign-in correctly but I don't want this extra step. What can I do to have it go directly to sign in when pressing messages button? Without the menu first?

[Maren Mahoney]

That is odd, so let's follow the logic:

• What is the Voicemail Profile assigned to the DN? Is there a Mask on the Profile?
• What Voicemail Pilot does the Profile point to and in what partition?
• Is the number/partition identified in the Voicemail Pilot associated with a Route Pattern pointing to the SIP Trunk that integrates CUCM with CUC?
• Are there any other instances of that number in a different partition?

If all of the above is 'normal' in CUCM, then you would look in CUC:

• Is there a Direct Call Routing Rule that captures calls and sends them someplace other than the Opening Greeting Rule? (This could be a rule that has no conditions, or a rule that is more specific)
• What is the Greeting on the Opening Greeting?
• Is there configuration of Call Input keys on the Opening Greeting? Where do they go?

Take a look and let us know what you find.

Maren

[coop1]

CUCM

There IS a mask on the VM profile. It is XXXX. We have done this at several locations without issue
The pilot and route pattern pointing to SIP trunk are all fine. No duplicate instances

CUC

The Direct Call Routing Rule is the Attempt Sign-In default. No conditions. All calls matched.
The only other Direct Routing Rule is the Opening Greeting and that is also default.

When you do choose 1 on the menu for Voice Mail, it gives you the correct sign-in message (enter your PIN, followed by #). But they don't want to have to press 1 or get a menu. It should go directly to VM.

[Maren Mahoney]

Okay. So the Mask sets the Caller ID sent to CUC, which can affect which call routing rule is matched, which is why I asked. But if your VM Boxes are in 4-digit format the XXXX is exactly what you'd expect.

The Attempt Sign-In does have an implied condition (not shown explicitly in CUC) that matches on caller ID to any Call Handler or VM Box with that 4-digit pattern.

Is this happening to a single extension or to all extensions at a site? Do you have more than one partition configured in CUC where you'd have the same number in two partitions? 

If it is happening to all users at a site, were their VM Boxes created using a different Template that other sites?

I'm trying to think of other things that would impact call flow, and I'm looking to see if there is a parameter that would affect this Conversation.

Maren

[coop1]

We do not have more than one partition configured. I do think it is happening for all users, but I am going to delve into that now. They have a couple different voice mail pilots going to different systems and I think its even across different voice mail systems so I am not sure Unity is even involved. Is there a parameter in UCM relating to all this?

I so appreciate your help looking into this.

[Maren Mahoney]

It might be worthwhile to use the Route Plan Report to view the number in the VM Pilot across the system to see if there is another pattern that is taking precedence when the Messages button is pressed. It might not be CUC that is asking about the Keypress 1, but maybe another IVR that is causing this. (Is there a Keypress 2 option, by the way?)

When you say there are multiple systems, do you mean that CUCM is integrated with multiple CUCs? Multiple VM systems some of which are not CUC? Or do you mean that you have multiple PBXes that are integrated with CUC?

The Attempt Sign In Conversation is not customizable, same with the Greetings Administrator and other built-in conversations. They are "Conversations" and not Call Handlers. I looked and do not see anything in System Settings > Advanced > Conversations in CUC that would cause the behavior you are describing.

I'm a bit stumped, to be honest, unless the call generated by pressing the Messages button is being redirected to something other than CUC first. But there MUST be a reason. I'll keep looking. Maybe someone else here knows.

Maren

[coop1]

[cid:32526ac6-2475-4107-a184-4483fe2bb78d]

This is what it looks like on the phones. I realize this is a CIPC and out of support but I just wanted you to get a picture of what it looks like. There is no option 2.

This is a resort campus and they have another voice mail system for guest rooms that checks users in and out of rooms and changes the phone CSS. It is not CUC. I don't know much about that system. But the issue is with the regular staff, too. They have their own voice mail pilot, profile and SIP trunk to that other system. But they are having the same issue.

I did check the Route Plan report.

[Maren Mahoney]

Huh. The picture did not come through. Can I assume that the VM Pilot for the staff and the VM Pilot for the Guest rooms are different numbers?

Do you by chance have Visual Voicemail configured in CUCM deployed as an IP Phone Service?

Maren

[coop1]

Yes the VM Pilots, Profiles and SIP trunks are totally different for guests vs. staff.
I do not have Visual Voicemail deployed as an IP Phone Service, however I did see a checkbox somewhere along the way that said to allow web mail or something like that. And I thought that was for Visual Voicemail.

[coop1 · Accepted solution]

I actually found the issue. On the phone configuration page, the field is "Services Provisioning" and it was set to "both" (no idea why). I changed it to "default" and it worked. I'm not sure what external URL its bringing in or what made it do that, but it is now working. I would love to know where to look to see what external URL was in play.

Thanks so much for your help

[Maren Mahoney]

Set to "Both" means that it will give the user the option to use the internal services urls (in the Enterprise Parameters) as Option 1 as well as any configured in the "External Data Locations Information" configured on the phone as Option 2.

So, in the end, it was behaving as programmed which is annoying at times....lol Nice find!

Maren

[coop1]

Thanks! The fact that there was NOT an option 2 on the menu, I guess that means there were no "External Data Locations" configured?

[Maren Mahoney]

Precisely! Had there been, there would have been an Option 2. Without, CUCM was presenting only Option 1.

(I've been doing this stuff for nearly 25 years and I learned something today. It's a good day! Thank you.)

May I suggest that you mark your answer as the "Solution"? That will help folks that google this later on.

Maren

[coop1]

Absolutely!