VG 224 Incorrect/mismatched numbers

[IT@rscva.com]

Hello,

I have a VG 224 with CM 11. Recently we moved buildings, now the analog ports connected to the VG 224 are incorrect. For example, I plug in an analog phone and dial out, on the receiving phone the number listed is not the expected number. I cannot find where to update this configuration. I would expect that I should be able to configure the fxo port with a specific number. In Call Manager, I can see the gateway and the fxo ports, and the ports have the correct directory number but it doesn't match what the actual port has. The analog lines are punched down in 66 block distribution panel which is plugged into the VG 224 with and RJ 21. Also, on the 2811 router there is an FXO card with 4 ports which would be sufficient. I could wire the analog lines to the 2811 but that still brings up the question of how to assign analog numbers to the ports. 

Regards,

Chris

[Elliot Dierksen]

It depends how the VG224 (getting pretty old at this point) is configured. It could be configured stand alone with "station-id number" and "station-id name" values on it. If it is registering with CUCM, that could be done via SCCP or MGCP. In either case, the directory number assignments would be in CUCM.

[IT@rscva.com]

Hi Elliot,

Yes, I have new equipment coming to replace the vg224 and 2811. In CUCM the dn assignments are correct(ie fxo port # =dn with correct fax machine listed). But if I go to the fax machine and plug in an analog phone the number does not match what is in CUCM. 

[Roger Kallberg]

Just a small correction, VG224 has FXS ports, not FXO.

If you have configured the VG with SCCP or MGCP you should in CM see it as a gateway and on it should list the ports on the gateway entity. Each port has its own configuration, that is pretty much equal to that as for a desk phone, with device and directory number configuration.

[IT@rscva.com · Accepted solution]

Okay, I reconfigured the analog devices with the correct DN in CUCM. Everything is working as expected. I don't know why I didn't consider that first. 

[Roger Kallberg]

Great to hear that you where able to sort this out.

One thing, any specific reason for why you marked your own reply as the solution to your question and also why you did not give helpful votes to more than one answer?