call handler transfer failing

[admin_2]

When I first installed Unity at site x, we created a call handler (for vm only from the call manager web attndt to which the operator can transfer to a virtual by speed dial (speed dial doesn't accept "#")) that has a blank greeting and goes back to itself. The transfer is set to dial the vm pilot and send follow along digits of the users actual extension followed by #2.<br>When I initallly created these call handlers(4 total) even though the call manager sent the call directly to Unity, Unity didn't "recognize" the extension. At htat time I rebooted Unity and we were good. That was 4-5 months ago.<br>Now this problem has resurfaced and rebooting has no effect. Only these four call handlers are affected. All other call handlers including the "fax" handlers work fine.<br>I do not believe this is a call manager issue. If I dial Unity direct and then the "virtual extension for transfer" i/e the call handler extension it still occurs,<br>Ideas?<br><br>

[#2]

Just so I understand...

There's a speed dial to a "virtual" phone that essentially points to the DTMF id of a specific call handler. This call handler doesn't do anything accept transfer to something like this...

VoiceMail pilot + (some pause amount) + (some subscriber extension) + # + 2

Is that correct? If so, that's going to create a temporary bridge between to TSP ports which is not entirely a good thing to do. I think I understand why this is being done (to enable a "quick transfer to voice mail" by only dialing a simple extension), there might be a better way.

So when this is tried now, what happens? Does Unity say that it doesn't recognize the extension? If you want to troubleshoot that, you could open the StatusMonitor.exe and select to view the "Conversation" monitor. This will show the DTMFs that Unity got.

Instead of having the CallHandler physically do a transfer, have you tried in the action "after greeting" sending the caller (make sure it is marked for "send to greeting") to the subscriber that you were previously transferring to? It just seems like a cleaner way of doing things. You can avoid a Unity port to port connection and you don't have to worry about any goofy transfers. Maybe there's some reason why this won't work out, if so, let me know.

Steve Olivier
Software Engineer
Cisco Systems