The reason 3001 does not show a missed call is because 3001 did not miss any 
calls. The call was for 3002.

A blinky light flashing is NOT a call. It's just a blinky light to tell you 
that someone else has a call.

Enabling the "BLF for call lists" parameter means you can view people's 
presence status from your call lists. It has nothing to do with viewing other 
people's call lists.

It sounds like maybe you're seeking a behaviour that would be better achieved 
with a shared DN.

-mn

From: cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
Jeffrey Girard
Sent: December-01-15 6:20 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM Native Presence (BLF/SD) populating Directories / 
Call Lists

All -
                I have been lurking on this list for quite a while as I 
continue to hone my collaboration skills.

                CAVEAT:  This is not a production system and is not for any 
customer.  This is my lab as I continue to try to learn.

                CUCM v9

Desired endstate:  Populate the Missed Calls with CUCM Native Presence / Speed 
Dial information.

                What I have configured:

                2 phones, both 7962s.  Both have a BLF/SD pointing to the 
other.  One DN is 3001 and the other DN is 3002.  BLF/SDs work fine.  Created a 
single partition that holds all the phones PT_Internal and a single CSS that 
holds the partition CSS_Internal.  On each of the 7962s, I set the line 
SUBSCRIBE CSS to CSS_Internal.  Finally, I set the Enterprise Parameter "BLF 
for Call Lists" to enabled.

                However, if I go offhook on 3002 and dial itself, I see the BLF 
light on 3001.  If I don't answer the call and then I check the missed calls 
for 3001, I expect to see an entry for 3002.  However, nothing shows.  If I go 
offhook on 3002, call 3001, let it ring and do not answer, that missed call 
shows up as it should.

                My Directories are populated with information from when I park 
calls, directed parks, but not the missed call tied to the BLF.

                Is this the expected behavior?  Am I expecting to see something 
(this missed call from 3002) that should not be there by design?

Thanks,
Jeff
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Reply via email to