Calling Line ID (CLID) sent to Providers SIP Invite

[Chin Jam]

Hi Community,

I received notice from my Service Provider that certain DNs are sending only the DN (e.g. 1234) and not a valid 10 Digit number in the SIP invite.  

They indicated further that "The general CLID rule is the CLID field must be a dial able number based on the North American dialing standard.  For most customers, this means a 10 digit number AND valid NPA-NXX."  

I was provided only a 24 hour report which included a small fraction of DNs in our CUCM so I am unclear if this is a global setting in CUCM or on the Cisco CUBE (gateway) or an individual DN setting in CUCM.

All DNs in CUCM are all configured as:
Display (Caller ID) - "First/Last name"

ASCII DIsplay (Caller ID) - "CompanyName"

External Phone Mask - "111111XXXX" (10 digit DID number)

Could anyone point me in the right direction on where the CLID configuration is that sends as part of the SIP invite?  

Thanks.

CJ

[Chin Jam]

forgot to mention the CUBE SIP profile:

voice class sip-profiles 1
request INVITE sip-header Diversion remove
request INVITE sip-header SIP-Req-URI modify "sip:(.*)@X.X.X.X:5060" "sip:\1@siptrunking.isp.com:5060"
request INVITE sip-header Remote-Party-ID remove
request INVITE sip-header Contact modify "@" ";tgrp=XXXXXXXXXX;trunk-context=siptrunking.isp.com@"
request INVITE sip-header From modify "<sip:(.*)@X.X.X.X>" "<sip:\1@domain.com>;user=phone;otg=XXXXXXXXXXX"
request INVITE sip-header To modify "X.X.X.X" "siptrunking.ISP.ca"

Any assistance would be appreciated.

CJ

[TONY SMITH · Accepted solution]

What's the full routing inside CUCM?   Often the culprit will be a Route Pattern where "Use Calling Party's External Phone Number Mask" is not ticked.   If that doesn't do the trick we need to know a bit more about the call flow, is it using a CUBE gateway, etc etc.

[Chin Jam]

Thanks for the reply Tony.

I did find that only a few of the DNs are configured without an external number mask.  I have since populated these fields.

I also found that a few route patterns did not have Use Calling Party's External Phone Number Mask" checked.  When I went to check this setting, I got the message below

I was also reading that the “Use Calling Party's External Phone Number Mask ” Route List detail configuration overrides the route pattern setting.  My setting is currently “Default”.  Where can I confirm what the default setting is?

We are using a CUBE and the SIP profile is below:

voice class sip-profiles 1
request INVITE sip-header Diversion remove
request INVITE sip-header SIP-Req-URI modify "sip:(.*)@X.X.X.X:5060" "sip:\1@siptrunking.isp.com:5060"
request INVITE sip-header Remote-Party-ID remove
request INVITE sip-header Contact modify "@" ";tgrp=XXXXXXXXXX;trunk-context=siptrunking.isp.com@"
request INVITE sip-header From modify "<sip:(.*)@X.X.X.X>" "<sip:\1@domain.com>;user=phone;otg=XXXXXXXXXXX"
request INVITE sip-header To modify "X.X.X.X" "siptrunking.ISP.ca"

[Chin Jam]

I was also reading that the “Use Calling Party's External Phone Number Mask ” Route List detail configuration overrides the route pattern setting.  My setting is currently “Default”. 

Where can I check what the default setting is??

Can anyone shed some light on what the CUBE SIP profile does and if it affect the Caller ID on outbound calls?  

voice class sip-profiles 1
request INVITE sip-header Diversion remove
request INVITE sip-header SIP-Req-URI modify "sip:(.*)@X.X.X.X:5060" "sip:\1@siptrunking.isp.com:5060"
request INVITE sip-header Remote-Party-ID remove
request INVITE sip-header Contact modify "@" ";tgrp=XXXXXXXXXX;trunk-context=siptrunking.isp.com@"
request INVITE sip-header From modify "<sip:(.*)@X.X.X.X>" "<sip:\1@domain.com>;user=phone;otg=XXXXXXXXXXX"
request INVITE sip-header To modify "X.X.X.X" "siptrunking.ISP.ca"

[jason-mcgee]

Chin,

The warning message for Forced Authorization Codes can be ignored by selecting ok, unless you are using them. If you don't know what they are, you aren't using them. The FAC are codes you can give your users that will set the level of calls they are allowed to make....i.e. entry level employee is not allowed to make long distance calls, mid level employees can place international calls, etc. then you would set your route patterns to use the FAC's and manage where they can call.

I am not sure where the default setting points to in the Route List detail portion, I was unable to find it in Enterprise Parameters or Service Parameters, but regardless I have never changed it and I use it exactly the way you describe. Just leave it as default and either manage External Mask from there, the route pattern, or at an individual level.

[TONY SMITH]

The setting in the Route List, specifically in the Route Group entry in the RL determines whether the External Number Mask setting from the preceding Route Pattern is used or overridden.

"Default" - use the Route Pattern's setting

"On" - use External Number Mask even if Route Pattern doesn't have it ticked

"Off" - don't use External Number Mask even if it's ticked in the Route Pattern

[Chin Jam]

Thanks again Tony for confirming the Route List settings.  I will leave them as default and allow the Route Pattern setting to present the CLID.

In RTMT I ran a SIP call trace (Session Trace Log View > Real Time Data) on multiple calls.  The results provided the SIP INVITE output below for each call and showed the DID as the 'From' party <sip:XXXXXXXXXX@IPofCUCM>:

Is this the SIP INVITE CLID that the SIP Provider display to external parties as the CLID?  I just want to be sure that my CLID settings are correct now for all external calls.

Thanks for any guidance

[TONY SMITH]

Yes, "From" is the basic header that is normally used for CLID in terms of what the final called party sees. 

[Chin Jam]

Thank you Tony - your help is much appreciated.

[Chin Jam]

Thanks Jason for your assistance.
I found a document on Forced Authorization Codes and they are not enforced so I ignored the error and checked “Use Calling Party's External Phone Number Mask” in the route patterns.