CAller ID problem with DID

Discussion in '3CX Phone System - General' started by onmark, Oct 30, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. onmark

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi
    I have a voip trunk with 5 DID. The caller id works fine when called outside number from the extension. When I dial an internal extension from another extension by using the DID assigned to that extension, call comes as anonymous. I want the DID assigned to the extension from which the call is being made to be displayed on the other extension.
    Can you please suggest what I might be doing wrong ?
    Many Thanks
     
  2. leejor

    leejor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    10,573
    Likes Received:
    247
    Is the DID number the same as the extension number?

    Are you dialling other extensions by using outbound rules, routing out then back in?

    An extension to extension call should not normally have issues with Caller ID.

    Have you looked over the 3CX log?
     
  3. onmark

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    DID number is not the same as extension number. I am dialling from extension 100 whose did is xxxxx1 to extension 101 whose did is xxxxx2.
    Yes, I am dialling extension using outbound rules and then back in.
    I can post the log if you that can help.

    thanks
     
  4. leejor

    leejor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    10,573
    Likes Received:
    247
    In the extension setting, you can set what number is to be displayed. Since you are using outbound rules, are you routing via a provider out, then back in, or are you using a "Loopback SIP Trunk"? If you are not using a loopback trunk, then you might try that to see if it will pass the CID as datafilled in the extension .

    See Sy's reply in this post on how to implement this. http://www.3cx.com/forums/internal-users-dialing-dids-instead-of-extension-20002.html#p102900

    I can't guarantee that this will make any difference, as i haven't tried it, but is would cut down on trunk costs for calls that actually remain internal.
     
  5. onmark

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    yes I am using the outbound rules i.e. no loopback trunking.
    here is the log from 3cx

    03-Nov-2014 02:44:25.078 Leg L:8.1[Extn] is terminated: Cause: CANCEL from 192.168.3.7:5060
    03-Nov-2014 02:44:21.488 [CM505003]: Provider:[CallPlus] Device info: Device Not Identified: User Agent not matched; Capabilities:[reinvite, replaces, able-no-sdp, recvonly] UserAgent: [] PBX contact: [sip:099741996@0.0.0.0]
    03-Nov-2014 02:44:21.239 [CM503025]: Call(C:9): Calling T:Extn:101@[Dev:sip:101@192.168.3.8:5060] for L:9.1[Line:10000<<anonymous]
    03-Nov-2014 02:44:21.225 [CM503027]: Call(C:9): From: Line:10000<<anonymous ("Anonymous" <sip:anonymous@192.168.3.6:5060>) to T:Extn:101@[Dev:sip:101@192.168.3.8:5060]
    03-Nov-2014 02:44:21.225 [CM503004]: Call(C:9): Route 1: from L:9.1[Line:10000<<anonymous] to T:Extn:101@[Dev:sip:101@192.168.3.8:5060]
    03-Nov-2014 02:44:21.225 [CM505003]: Provider:[CallPlus] Device info: Device Not Identified: User Agent not matched; Capabilities:[reinvite, replaces, able-no-sdp, recvonly] UserAgent: [] PBX contact: [sip:099741996@0.0.0.0]
    03-Nov-2014 02:44:21.223 [CM503001]: Call(C:9): Incoming call from Line:10000<<anonymous to <sip:101@192.168.3.6:5060>
    03-Nov-2014 02:44:21.223 Line limit check: Current # of calls for line Lc:10000(@CallPlus[<sip:099741996@203.184.16.39:5060>]) is 2; limit is 5
    03-Nov-2014 02:44:20.981 [CM503012]: Inbound any hours rule (unnamed) for 10000 forwards to DN:101
    03-Nov-2014 02:44:20.390 [CM503025]: Call(C:8): Calling T:Line:10000>>092800391@[Dev:sip:099741996@203.184.16.39:5060] for L:8.1[Extn]
    03-Nov-2014 02:44:20.104 [CM503027]: Call(C:8): From: Extn:100 ("Reception" <sip:100@192.168.3.6:5060>) to T:Line:10000>>092800391@[Dev:sip:099741996@203.184.16.39:5060]
    03-Nov-2014 02:44:20.104 [CM503004]: Call(C:8): Route 1: from L:8.1[Extn] to T:Line:10000>>092800391@[Dev:sip:099741996@203.184.16.39:5060]
    03-Nov-2014 02:44:20.104 Line limit check: Current # of calls for line Lc:10000(@CallPlus[<sip:099741996@203.184.16.39:5060>]) is 0; limit is 5
    03-Nov-2014 02:44:20.104 Call(C:8): Call from Extn:100 to 092800391 matches outbound rule 'Rule for CallPlus'
    03-Nov-2014 02:44:20.102 [CM503001]: Call(C:8): Incoming call from Extn:100 to <sip:092800391@192.168.3.6:5060>
     
  6. NickD_3CX

    NickD_3CX Support Team
    Staff Member 3CX Support

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2014
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    68
    OK, I think this shows that the provider for some reason is sending the "anonymous" as shown in this line:
    03-Nov-2014 02:44:21.223 [CM503001]: Call(C:9): Incoming call from Line:10000<<anonymous to <sip:101@192.168.3.6:5060>

    I suggest capturing a call in Wireshark and check out the INVITE message of the call coming in, just in case we are missing something, but it does seem that you are going to have to contact your provider about this issue.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.