A. either, there is a bug in libpri/dahdi as though pri debug shows 2 calls are treated the same (ie 2 different calls print the same output), in fact there is still a difference between them and this difference, in this specific case, change the way the CallerID is presented (for that I've got an pri intensive debug record at hand). B. either, the network behaves inconsistently : with the same input from Asterisk, it will either show or not show the CallerID though this data is passed to him. 2. As I'm not using latest libpri and dahdi versions, my plan is to update to 1.4.12 and 2.5.0.2 without changing my asterisk 1.6.1.18 version and try again. Any comment on that particular mix ? 3. I don't believe much in alternative A. What do you think ? Suggestions are welcome. Regards --bcaec5315085ba919404b32c5f7b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello,<br><br>Revisiting this old thread, following Richard's suggestion, I modified Asterisk config so that it would set RDNIS for every forwarded call.<br><br>I kept at hand, the results gathered in another test session :<br> the output of a "successful" call (with appropriate CallerID) and the output of an unsuccessful one.<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2011/11/8 Olivier <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:oza_4h07 at yahoo.fr">oza_4h07 at yahoo.fr</a>></span><br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Hi,<br><br>As promised, here is a follow up on my quest to get CallerID correctly presented when forwarding calls to cellphones.<br> <br>Here is a reminder of the issue at hand:<br><br>Alice (GSM handset) calls Bob (ISDN-connected Asterisk extension) which forwards to Cory (GSM handset)<br> What I would like to get is to see Alice's number (not Bob's number) presented to Cory.<br>Sometimes, I get Alice's number, sometimes, I get Bob's number (new findings from last sunday trials).<br>And of course, if Daniel or Eric would call Bob, the CallerID number presented to Cory would either be Daniel's number, Eric's number or Bob's number depending on a root cause I'm looking after for several days now.<br> <br><br><br>To check if CallerID is filtered or controlled by Telco, I originated calls from Asterisk using hand crafted caller ids: any CallerID was correctly presented.<br>So I originally thought the root cause I'm after is a telco equipment switching ANI and CID.<br> But a close look at some last trials output makes me asking for opinions from this list readers.<br><br>Here follows, the anonymized (and hand indented) output of command PRI debug command.<br>I focused on the end of call setup dialog.<br><br>For the successfully presented call, the output is:<br> [Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dahdi.c: > [6c 0b <a href=3D"tel:21%2083%2037%2038%2036" value=3D"+12183373836" target=3D"_blank">21 83 37 38 36</a> XX XX XX XX XX XX]<br>[Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dahdi.c: > Calling Number (len=3D13) [ Ext: 0=A0 TON: National Number (2)=A0 NPI: ISDN/Telephony Numbering Plan (E.164/E.163) (1)<br> [Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dahdi.c: >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Presentation: Presentation allowed of network provided number (3)=A0 '78649XXXX' ]<br>[Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dahdi.c: > [70 0b 80 30 36 37 31 XX XX XX XX XX XX]<br> [Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dahdi.c: > Called Number (len=3D13) [ Ext: 1=A0 TON: Unknown Number Type (0)=A0 NPI: Unknown Number Plan (0)=A0 '067100XXXX' ]<br>[Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dahdi.c: > [74 0e 21 01 8f 33 33 33 34 34 XX XX XX XX XX XX]<br> [Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dahdi.c: > Redirecting Number (len=3D16) [ Ext: 0=A0 TON: National Number (2)=A0 NPI: ISDN/Telephony Numbering Plan (E.164/E.163) (1)<br>[Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dahdi.c: >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Ext: 0=A0 Presentation: Presentation permitted, user number passed network screening (1)<br> [Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dahdi.c: >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Ext: 1=A0 Reason: Forwarded unconditionally (15)<br>[Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dahdi.c:=A0=A0 '3334436XXXX' ]<br>[Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dahdi.c: > [a1]<br> [Nov=A0 6 09:32:07] VERBOSE[27954] chan_dahdi.c: > Sending Complete (len=3D 1)<br><br><br></blockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> For the unsuccessfully presented call, the output is:<br>[Nov=A0 6 09:25:29] VERBOSE[27927] chan_dahdi.c: > [6c 0b <a href=3D"tel:21%2083%2036%2037%2038" value=3D"+12183363738" target=3D"_blank">21 83 36 37 38</a> XX XX XX XX XX XX]<br> [Nov=A0 6 09:25:29] VERBOSE[27927] chan_dahdi.c: > Calling Number (len=3D13) [ Ext: 0=A0 TON: National Number (2)=A0 NPI: ISDN/Telephony Numbering Plan (E.164/E.163) (1)<br>[Nov=A0 6 09:25:29] VERBOSE[27927] chan_dahdi.c: >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Presentation: Presentation allowed of network provided number (3)=A0 '67854XXXX' ]<br> [Nov=A0 6 09:25:29] VERBOSE[27927] chan_dahdi.c: > [70 0b 80 30 36 37 31 XX XX XX XX XX XX]<br>[Nov=A0 6 09:25:29] VERBOSE[27927] chan_dahdi.c: > Called Number (len=3D13) [ Ext: 1=A0 TON: Unknown Number Type (0)=A0 NPI: Unknown Number Plan (0)=A0 '067100XXXX' ]<br> [Nov=A0 6 09:25:29] VERBOSE[27927] chan_dahdi.c: > [a1]<br>[Nov=A0 6 09:25:29] VERBOSE[27927] chan_dahdi.c: > Sending Complete (len=3D 1)<br><br><br>Am I correctly interpreting when saying that in the successful call, Asterisk is sending a [74 0e 21 01 8f 33 33 33 34 34 XX XX XX XX XX XX] message which is not otherwise sent ?<br> What can explains this difference ?<br>Is this something I can (should) control ?<br><br>For reference:<br>dahdi show version <br>DAHDI Version: SVN-trunk-r8853M Echo Canceller: OSLEC<br>pri show version <br>libpri version: 1.4.10.2<br> <br><br><br>Regards<br> </blockquote></div><br><br>From another unsuccessful try, I got the following (anonymized) output:<br>[Dec=A0 3 09:21:32] VERBOSE[6201] chan_dahdi.c: > Calling Number (len=3D13) [ Ext: 0=A0 TON: National Number (2)=A0 NPI: ISDN/Telephony Numbering Plan (E.164/E.163) (1)<br>[Dec=A0 3 09:21:32] VERBOSE[6201] chan_dahdi.c: >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Presentation: Presentation allowed of network provided number (3)=A0 '95135XXXX' ]<br>[Dec=A0 3 09:21:32] VERBOSE[6201] chan_dahdi.c: > [70 0b 80 30 36 37 31 30 XX XX XX XX XX]<br>[Dec=A0 3 09:21:32] VERBOSE[6201] chan_dahdi.c: > Called Number (len=3D13) [ Ext: 1=A0 TON: Unknown Number Type (0)=A0 NPI: Unknown Number Plan (0)=A0 '06710XXXXX' ]<br>[Dec=A0 3 09:21:32] VERBOSE[6201] chan_dahdi.c: > [74 0e 21 01 8f 33 33 33 34 34 33 XX XX XX XX XX]<br>[Dec=A0 3 09:21:32] VERBOSE[6201] chan_dahdi.c: > Redirecting Number (len=3D16) [ Ext: 0=A0 TON: National Number (2)=A0 NPI: ISDN/Telephony Numbering Plan (E.164/E.163) (1)<br>[Dec=A0 3 09:21:32] VERBOSE[6201] chan_dahdi.c:<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Ext: 0=A0 Presentation: Presentation permitted, user number passed network screening (1)<br>[Dec=A0 3 09:21:32] VERBOSE[6201] chan_dahdi.c:<br> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Ext: 1=A0 Reason: Forwarded unconditionally (15)<br>[Dec=A0 3 09:21:32] VERBOSE[6201] chan_dahdi.c:=A0=A0 '333443XXXXX' ]<br>[Dec=A0 3 09:21:32] VERBOSE[6201] chan_dahdi.c: > [a1]<br>[Dec=A0 3 09:21:32] VERBOSE[6201] chan_dahdi.c: > Sending Complete (len=3D 1)<br> <br>1. Am I correct not seeing any meaningful difference with the successful one above ?<br><br>From this, I would conclude by:<br>A. either, there is a bug in libpri/dahdi as though pri debug shows 2 calls are treated the same (ie 2 different calls print the same output), in fact there is still a difference between them and this difference, in this specific case, change the way the CallerID is presented (for that I've got an pri intensive debug record at hand).<br>B. either, the network behaves inconsistently : with the same input from Asterisk, it will either show or not show the CallerID though this data is passed to him.<br><br>2. As I'm not using latest libpri and dahdi versions, my plan is to update to 1.4.12 and 2.5.0.2 without changing my asterisk 1.6.1.18 version and try again.<br>Any comment on that particular mix ?<br> <br><br>3. I don't believe much in alternative A.<br>What do you think ?<br>Suggestions are welcome.<br><br>Regards<br> --bcaec5315085ba919404b32c5f7b--