I can't change it, because I need that pattern for calls that we do send
that way. So, I need my cake, and to be able to eat it too. As a work
around, I am just creating one off DNs for the patterns in question*. In
the real world, it's not 1XXX, rather, this is an environment which
thought
Maybe I’m oversimplifying the work around (having not seen your environment),
but could you not just set your redirect CSS to one that doesn’t have
visibility of the 1XXX route pattern?
FWIW, I have agreed with your assessment 100%. It makes no sense at all why
CCM is performing DA/DM on
Damn! You played a Reverse card on me! Well played.
Well, here's how it made me feel. You were just testing the use of
different CSSs, which caused a difference in Digit Analysis. You didn't
provide any logs to review, but I assume you have a different CSS on each
of the: CTI Port, VGW, and IP
“When RCSS is set to Redirecting Party, the call was routed normally with an
untransformed called party.”
I dunno, how did that make you feel?
Sent from an iOS device with very tiny touchscreen input keys. Please excude
my typtos.
> On Sep 21, 2018, at 12:03 PM, Anthony Holloway
> wrote:
>
Not yet, just finished a customer install early this morning. Planning to test
it out tomorrow when I get back to my lab.
Sent from an iOS device with very tiny touchscreen input keys. Please excude
my typtos.
> On Sep 18, 2018, at 4:52 PM, Anthony Holloway
> wrote:
>
> Update: I've been
Update: I've been working a TAC case for a few days on this now, and I have
not made any progress. I also posted this scenario in the Advanced Dial
Plan WebEx Teams space, but no replies so far.
Bill, have you tested this out? Anyone else have some experience with this?
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at
In this example acenario, it's a Route Pattern. I have also confirmed it
happens with a Translation Pattern too. I actually set it to Block This
Pattern just to see what would happen, and that had no impact on the
behavior.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018, 5:49 PM Bill Talley wrote:
> I’ve been doing this
I’ve been doing this that way for years and haven’t come across this flaw. Is
it happening because it’s matching a “route pattern” or because it’s matching a
called party transformation pattern? I will have to test this out to see if
I’ve just been lucky. What version of CUCM are you
Well, I guess that all depends on your configuration, but what I'm getting
at, transcends than that even.
Imagine any CSS configuration scenario, by way in which there is no match
to the pattern 1000 anywhere. This is how the Call Redirect from UCCX to
CUC, while resetting the Called Address
Anthony, wouldn't your CSS on cti ports (via the call control group)
determine what transformation is applied to the call?
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 4:58 PM Anthony Holloway <
avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't know this, and so I thought I'd share, but who knows, maybe it
> was
I didn't know this, and so I thought I'd share, but who knows, maybe it was
common knowledge.
If you use the Call Redirect step in UCCX to send a call directly to a
mailbox/call handler in CUC, and thus, your Destination is the VM Pilot,
while your target object in CUC is your Called Adddress,
11 matches
Mail list logo
