Is it possible matching a calling party transformation? What does the Digit Analysis look like in the CallManager traces?
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Erick Bergquist <erick...@gmail.com> wrote: > I checked that and it is good. I did a dbreplication status and it > checked and came back with no errors. > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Brian Meade <bmead...@vt.edu> wrote: > > dbreplication working okay? > > > > Might want to try "utils dbreplication repair all" so it just goes > through > > and checks all the tables assuming you're in a good state now. > > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Erick Bergquist <erick...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> I have been facing a weird route pattern and route list issue and am > >> unable to find cause or reason why the route list is not passing along > >> changes made at route pattern level. > >> > >> Call Manager version 11.0(1) SU3 -- 11.0.1.23900-5 > >> > >> > >> On the route pattern level I am hard setting the calling party > >> transform mask to a specific number to be sent out for Caller ID. > >> > >> The route list level is default, and is not passing through the set > >> number and calls go out with extension on phone. > >> > >> I have deleted the route pattern, route list, and route group and made > >> them from scratch and same problem. There are no transformations > >> being done on the SIP trunk and no modifications on the trunk. The > >> route list and trunks have been reset and saved and updated numerous > >> times. > >> > >> Cisco DNA output shows the changes being done to calling party number > >> on route pattern level and on route list detail level in DNA it shows > >> the phone extension. > >> > >> I have tried changing the settings from default to Off and on on the > >> route list detail without effect. > >> > >> I've never had this problem before with route pattern changes not > >> being passed through to the destination gateway or trunk. > >> > >> I'm having to create extra route lists at moment to put the specific > >> number on the calling party transform field on route list detail > >> level. I don't really want the extra route lists though. > >> > >> Anyone have any ideas? > >> > >> Erick > >> _______________________________________________ > >> cisco-voip mailing list > >> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > > > > >
_______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip