CCM 6.X <-> Unity Connection 2.X - Transfer directly to another persons VM

[rraver]

I have CCM 6.0(1) and Unity Connection 2.X setup on the same box. What is needed to make it so users can transfer to a persons voicemail directly without something like auto attendant? The technotes for standard Unity don't work and I can't configure it the same way as express.

Thanks in advanced.

[mhansen]

I configured this yesterday however unity connections was on a seperate box.

Create a CTI Port with a DN of *XXXX (or whatever the extension pattern is) and set it to forward all to voicemail.

When i first set this up, it was not going to the persons voicemail that i initially setup so i used the "Port Status Monitor" tool from http://www.ciscounitytools.com/CUC_2xTools.htm

to see the call hitting unity. You must first enable this tool in the unity connections administration interface by going to "Advanced - (the bottom option, sorry i am not at the customer to get the info) and at the very bottom, there is a radio check box that will enable unity to export the port status so when you connect with this tool you will see the port activity.

By using this tool, i found that the CTI port was not setting the "redirecting station" field which unity uses to identify the mailbox destination. By deleting the CTI port and re-adding it, it seemed to solved my problem and i was then able to see the redirecting station.

Hope this helps.

Mike

[dennisbehrens]

If you have set the Alerting Name on the CTI Route Point DN, try removing it. I was just viewing the SvcHost trace files within Unity 5.0(1) with TSP 8.2(1) and saw that Unity was detecting the forwarded call as coming from a Voice Mail port. I believe it's either detecting the word "Voicemail", or matching it against the Alerting Name of the voicemail ports. I have a TAC case open and will update with the results.

[mhansen]

i have just hit this issue again at another customer, this time with callmanager 6.1 and unity 5.

your solution of removing the alerting name worked for me as i had it set to "Voicemail". As soon as i removed the alerting name, it is sending the redirecting string correctly.

Did you ever get a resolution from TAC???

Thanks

[dennisbehrens]

Yes.

The TAC engineer told me that this is "expected behavior". It is published (in fine print) that the word "Voicemail" should not be used when creating the CTI Route Point.

Glad it worked!

Dennis