ReWrite Called Party Number with Portion of Redirecting Number

[schaef350]

When using two PRI carriers I have the first carrier configured with Direct Termination Overflow (DTO) and an unreachable number to point to the PRIs of another carrier.  When the second carrier delivers the calls over the PRIs they are of course rewritten with a new "Called Party Number".  

Is there a way to re write the Called Party Number with a portion of the Redirecting Number on inbound calls?  Currently the gateways are configured with MGCP back to CUCM but if another option needs to be used I'm fine with that as well.  My preference would be to continue using MGCP if possible.

Example:

Calling from 5555550001 to 5555550002  being redirected to 5555550003

debug isdn q931 output.

.....

before:

      Progress Ind i = 0x8283 - Origination address is non-ISDN
        Calling Party Number i = 0x2183, '5555550001'
                Plan:ISDN, Type:National
        Called Party Number i = 0x80, '0003'
                Plan:Unknown, Type:Unknown
        Redirecting Number i = '!', 0x0080, '5555550002'
                Plan:ISDN, Type:National

After proposed rewrite:

   Progress Ind i = 0x8283 - Origination address is non-ISDN
        Calling Party Number i = 0x2183, '5555550001'
                Plan:ISDN, Type:National
        Called Party Number i = 0x80, '0002'
                Plan:Unknown, Type:Unknown
        Redirecting Number i = '!', 0x0080, '5555550002'
                Plan:ISDN, Type:National

The new Called Party Number must be the last 4 digits of the Redirecting Number.

[schaef350]

Will "translate redirect-called" do what I want?  I don't yet fully understand that translate configuration options.  Does anyone have some pointers?

[Jayanth Velkuri]

can you send the complete , deb isdn q931 and sh run 

[schaef350]

see attached.  I changed some information for privacy but should be enough to go on.  This is more hypothetical than anything.  I anticipate I may have to move away from MGCP to make this happen as well. 

[schaef350]

Jayanth,

Any further comment on this?  I have encountered this again in a similar scenario.