Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

MGCP Caller ID FXO 8.6

Has anyone got this to work in an 8.6 environment?  It seems to work sometimes and then it stops.  The only way I can get it to start working again is by rebooting the router.  The client is running 8.6 with the 2900 series routers (latest IOS 15.2.T1).  I've got the Enable Caller-ID checked in the FXO ports, caller-id enabled on the voice ports and the MGCP res package installed.

CUCM - 8.6.1a

2901 - 15.2.T1

7940 Phones


FWIW, caller-ID is working ok for us using FXO ports on 2901 routers (both loop-start and ground-start trunks) running MGCP.  We're running CUCM BE5000 8.6. 


I ended up setting up the gateway as H.323 and all problems went away.


We are running in to the same issue,  runnning  MGCP on FXO ports caller -id says Unknown Number , CUCM  ver(7.1.3 )

1) Some of them said they were able to resolve the issue using the commands.

voice-port x/x/x

timing guard-out 1000

mgcp persistent offhook

Can you tell me in what version of CUCM ??

2)  Also, when you say enabled "caller -id " on gateway page from CUCM.  Where exactly is that option. I am having difficulty finding it. Is it  only available in CUCM 8.X and later ? or am I missing it ?

3) Was any one able to resolve this on CUCM 7.X ?

Any suggestions??



CUCM 7 does not support caller ID running MGCP.  The only time it began support caller ID over MGCP is 8.6 which it didnt work for me to well.  Inconsistent.  For the issue that I ran into, I just moved them to H.323 and left it.  I use H.323 for all my gateways from now on unless I am running into a SIP trunk.  I would move it H.323 and you wont have a problem.  You have to setup SRST anyway, right?  Once you build your H.323/dial peer config, your SRST config is 95% done.  Just my 2 cents.

Thank you so much Josh,

I think moving to H.323  is the best option for us too. 




I understand all your frustration here but be aware that while H.323/SIP for FXO CLID Name works in small deployments it doesn't scale well as your system grows.  Just think about how you would have to manage this configuration if you had over 100 FXO gateways running H.323?  In that case MGCP perhaps becomes a nicer choice as you can centralize the dial-plan and management on CUCM and the routers have a cookie cutter config.

New features like MGCP supporting CLID Name on FXO ports are great but as we all know they take time to become stable and 'just work'.  I would caution you not to make long lasting architectual decisions based on a new feature's initial burn-in period. 


Please help us make the communities better.  Rate helpful posts!

Please help us make the communities better. Rate helpful posts!
Content for Community-Ad

Spotlight Awards 2021