Caller ID with name and H323 Gateway

[tony.hanson]

I'm having an issue getting CLID with H323 gateway. I can see it in the debug isdn q931, but it's not displayed on phone, just the number. I do have National PRI

[gogasca]

Hi Tony

Check if we are reciving the name in Facility IE or Display I.

H323 only support Display i, I thinks DEs dont have plan for supporting this.

http://www.ciscotaccc.com/kaidara-advisor/voice/showcase?case=K14016668

[tony.hanson]

It is being sent in Facility IE. Is there a fix in the future?

[pfh]

I just emailed my SE to get an idea if/when this will be fixed. I'll post whatever he comes back with.

[adignan]

Any reason you can't change to MGCP instead of H.323? MGCP supports receiving caller name in the Facility IE.

adignan - berbee

[tony.hanson]

This is an existing customer of ours and they are not wanting to pay us to change them over to MGCP. That was my suggestion too.

[kulagowskir]

There doesn't seem to be a happy intersection between using MGCP to get access to caller name and SRST mode.

According to http://www.ciscotaccc.com/kaidara-advisor/voice/showcase?case=K32431525

"

Media Gateway Control Protocol (MGCP) PRI backhaul does not support call preservation when transitioned from MGCP to Survivable Remote Site Telephony (SRST) or from SRST to MGCP."

Which is bad, because you don't want calls dropping in and out if the WAN link is bouncing. The solution according to the case is "Use H.323", but of course the issue there is that you lose the display name if it's in the facility and not the display field.

It would be nice if it could at least be "lazy", so that the router would either wait until there was no call activity, or at least schedulable / forceable so that you can control what's happening.

[adignan]

yeah, definately would be nice to have call preservation for PRI's with MGCP.

adignan - berbee

[kulagowskir]

I'm assuming that the following q931 is showing facility rather than display, which is why we're not getting "WIRELESS CALLER" on the 7970, correct??

Jul 18 16:04:32.493: ISDN Se0/1/0:23 Q931: TX -> CALL_PROC pd = 8 callref = 0x82C8

Channel ID i = 0xA9838B

Exclusive, Channel 11

Jul 18 16:04:32.989: ISDN Se0/1/0:23 Q931: RX <- FACILITY pd = 8 callref = 0x02C8

Facility i = 0x9F8B0100A117020101020100800F574952454C4553532043414C4C4552

Protocol Profile = Networking Extensions

0xA117020101020100800F574952454C4553532043414C4C4552

Component = Invoke component

Invoke Id = 1

Operation = CallingName

Name presentation allowed

Name = WIRELESS CALLER

[pfh]

You're correct. There ought to be "Name information in subsequent FACILITY message" a few lines above the debug you posted.

[kulagowskir]

There was; I snipped it.

Can someone paste in a call trace of what a DISPLAY type of ISDN setup would look like? I'd like to send it to our providers and see if they can change it on their end, to show them a "before" and "after".

[pfh]

I don't have any, but I've been told by several carriers that it is a per-switch setting and that they are unable to change it per-PRI. Those carriers had Lucent 5ESS switches. I don't have any info for Nortel DMS-100's.

[kulagowskir]

I just had a conversation with an engineer at Qwest, who stated that the "Display" information element isn't even a part of what you'd see in a PRI and that it's strictly found in BRIs. He states that their equipment is following Telcordia standards (and gave me a Word doc that fully explains his position, complete with excerpts from various GR and TR's), and that Facility is what should be used when you're using a PRI.

Cisco, any comment?

[kulagowskir]

I talked to our sales engineer, and there is already an existing PER (product enhancement request) for the facility / H.323 issue, and it was submitted in _2004_, and doesn't have any commitment assigned to it.

PER 9965. If the collective community wants any action on this, you need to contact your sales team and have them put in their support on this PER. The bigger you are, the more your vote counts in these matters.

[pfh]

I've had my channel team on it for a couple of weeks now. I'm told that they prioritize PER's based on potential sales, however. That doesn't really make sense to me. Would any of you guys put a brand spanking new IOS release with a new feature in it on production equipment?

I have some friends on the Bank of America implementation. I know they run all their core gateways in H323 mode, so they're definately experiencing the same issue. I'll see if I can get them to push from the commercial side of the Cisco house.