Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

PGW drops calls with NOA=8


I have a strange problem with my PGW 9.5(2) protocol patch version 70 running in signaling (nailed) mode.

I'm getting a call to a ported number from a partner and the PGW immediately drop the call with release code 28 (address incomplete). When I'm getting not ported number everything is fine. The only difference between the IAM messages is that the one with a ported number has NOA=8 and the normal call has NOA=3

Any ideas what a problem may be?

paolo bevilacqua
Hall of Fame Master

Hi, the thing is that according to documentation, NOA=8 means international, consequently PGW interprets as an incomplete number for whatever country.

Would check with who sends you the IAM if that's right.


Thank you for your post. Unfortunately I receive the call correctly (length and NOA) according to the local regulatory requirements for the ported numbers.

I see. So most likely the PGW is not aware of you local regulatory and uses the international coding.

I think if you contact TAC they should be able to suggest a config or patch for this.

Thaks will do. However the numner is 12 digits so I don't think this is the problem

Are you getting a routing number prepended to the called number? You should have these configured somewhere in the PGW.

Also, I was wrong about NOA 8 being international, it is not so.

I'm getting a routing number prepended but at this point I'm not interest of this as the PGW works in signaling mode and all the routing is happened in the GW. The call is drop before sending the information to the RLM group in the SS7 part

Correct, on the other hand the possibilities are two:

1. PGW is not configured correctly for NOA 8.

2. PGW for some reasons interprets the 3+9 digits number as incomplete.

In any case, the TAC should be able to answer easily.


Hi, you need to change your mdo variant on the ss7path from Q761_BASE to Q761_99VER_BASE.

noa=8 was not defined in 1997 version, it was later defined in the 1999 version.

Pretty much on the line of what I was saying :)

I've rated your post.

I'm in a process of testing now but can confirm with a changing the MDO to Q761_99VER_BASE solved the problem. Thanks everyone