LANCOM 1823 / get no caller-id

[marcel]

I have the following problem. I use an LANCOM 1823 router/voip gateway.

When I receiva a call on the LANCOM it is passed through to the 3CX as a gateway.

In short. I can only get the gateway-line number of the phone numer connected to the LANCOM 1823. I cannot get the caller-ID from who is calling me.

The problem lies in the data passed from the lancom to the 3cx.

In the from field is the gateway line-number passed
In the To field is the phone number passed to whom are calling (which is one of my own number)

The caller ID is passed in the field: P-Preferred-Identity.
But I cannot grab that field in the 3CX system to recognise.

Is there any way to get that info from that field.

For completing I have included an part of the trace from the LANCOM router with the information which is send to the 3cx system.

-----------------
[Callmanager] 1900/01/01 05:38:03,410 : [VCM] : - info : convert called MSN '344664909' to called-id
[Callmanager] 1900/01/01 05:38:03,410 : [VCM] : -----[ CALL INDICATION, call-id=1366
[Callmanager] 1900/01/01 05:38:03,420 : [VCM] : From: 0653110904@isdn
[Callmanager] 1900/01/01 05:38:03,420 : [VCM] : To : 344664909@isdn
[Callmanager] 1900/01/01 05:38:03,420 : [VCM] : - info : parse call routing table for active entries
[Callmanager] 1900/01/01 05:38:03,420 : [VCM] : - info : using routing entry in row # 1
[Callmanager] 1900/01/01 05:38:03,420 : [VCM] : - info : first/single way destination [email protected] via 3CX-GW
[Callmanager] 1900/01/01 05:38:03,420 : [VCM] : - info : proceeding call
[Callmanager] 1900/01/01 05:38:03,420 : [VCM] : - info : initiate call to [email protected]
[Callmanager] 1900/01/01 05:38:03,420 : [VCM] : - info : outgoing line is 3CX-GW
[Callmanager] 1900/01/01 05:38:03,420 : [VCM] : - info : called number is complete
[Callmanager] 1900/01/01 05:38:03,430 : [SIP-Provider] : -----[ INITIATE CALL, call-id=1366
[Callmanager] 1900/01/01 05:38:03,430 : [SIP-Provider] : From: 0653110904@isdn
[Callmanager] 1900/01/01 05:38:03,430 : [SIP-Provider] : To : [email protected]
[Callmanager] 1900/01/01 05:38:03,430 : [SIP-Provider] : - info : line '3CX-GW' operates is gateway mode
[Callmanager] 1900/01/01 05:38:03,430 : [SIP-Provider] : - info : convert dst-number '344664909' -> '344664909'
[SIP-Packet] 1900/01/01 05:38:03,430
Sending datagram with length 1037 from 192.168.228.227:37173 to 192.168.228.228:5060
INVITE sip:[email protected] SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.228.227:37173;branch=z9hG4bK-d2a9ccc0-8189b98f
From: <sip:[email protected];user=phone>;tag=-1672044904--1932198376
To: <sip:[email protected];user=phone>
Call-ID: 2855680000@00a057123b05
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Max-Forwards: 70
User-Agent: LANCOM 1823 VoIP (Annex B) / 7.23.0016 / 03.09.2007 (SerialNo=069081800093)
Server: Lancom1823
Allow: REGISTER, INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, BYE, REFER, NOTIFY, OPTIONS
Contact: <sip:[email protected]:37173>
P-Preferred-Identity: <sip:0653110904@isdn;user=phone>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 398
-------------------------


I hope somebody has an answer.

 

[Ralph]

Good morning

The following discussion should be of help:

http://www.3cx.com/forums/categories-1/3cx-phone-system-general-1/caller-id-not-showing-the-name-2074/

Take care,

 

[marcel]

Still the same problem

Dear Ralph,

The other forum which you pointed to was interresting, but not to my help.

The problem I have lies between sending the caller-ID (I wish I only needed the name now).

The problem is that the LANCOM 1823 Router passes an SIP-packet, but with the caller-id on a field which is not recognised by 3CX.

So, Is there a solution. Or maybe it might be a nice feature to let an user make a field of it's own to detect a caller-id. This might also be the solution for the other forum subject.

In stead of just offering the 5 fields:
'From' field
'To' field
'Request-Line-URI' field
'Contact' field
'RemotePartyID;party=calling' field

Offer an 6th option in which the user can fill in it's own field:
like: P-Preferred-Identity

My trace from the 3CX is:
----------------------------
[SIP-Packet] 1900/01/01 00:13:39,000
Sending datagram with length 1016 from 192.168.228.227:40582 to 192.168.228.228:5060:
INVITE sip:[email protected]:5060 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.228.227:40582;branch=z9hG4bK-ef6938d8-77b49c6c

From: <sip:[email protected];user=phone>;tag=189198306-94599153

To: <sip:[email protected];user=phone>

Call-ID: 378396612@00a057123b05
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Max-Forwards: 70
User-Agent: LANCOM 1823 VoIP (Annex B) / 6.33.0021 / 28.03.2007 (SerialNo=069081800093)
Allow: REGISTER, INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, BYE, REFER, NOTIFY, OPTIONS

Contact: <sip:[email protected]:40582>

P-Preferred-Identity: <sip:0653110904@isdn;user=phone>

Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 398
----------------------------

The file: 3CXPhoneSystem.trace shows the following:

----------------------------
21:34:20.176|Transport.cxx(209)|Debug8|Resip|>>:Adding message to tx buffer to: [ V4 192.168.228.210:5060 UDP target domain=unspecified received on: Transport: [ V4 0.0.0.0:5060 UDP target domain=unspecified connectionId=0 ] connectionId=0 ]
21:34:23.566|Transport.cxx(259)|Debug8|Resip|>>:incoming from: [ V4 192.168.228.227:36094 UDP target domain=unspecified received on: Transport: [ V4 0.0.0.0:5060 UDP target domain=unspecified connectionId=0 ] connectionId=0 ]
21:34:23.566|TransactionUser.cxx(66)|Debug8|Resip|>>:Checking if SipReq: INVITE [email protected] tid=-749c89b6-d3867d7a cseq=INVITE [email protected]:36094 / 1 from(wire) is for me
21:34:23.566|TransactionUser.cxx(71)|Debug8|Resip|>>:Checking rule...
21:34:23.566|MessageFilterRule.cxx(42)|Debug8|Resip|>>:Matching rule for INVITE sip:[email protected] SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.228.227:36094;branch=z9hG4bK-749c89b6-d3867d7a
Max-Forwards: 70
Contact: <sip:[email protected]:36094>
To: <sip:[email protected];user=phone>
From: <sip:[email protected];user=phone>;tag=-693911588-851336162
Call-ID: 4063839357@00a057123b05
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Allow: REGISTER, INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, BYE, REFER, NOTIFY, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/sdp
Server: Lancom1823
User-Agent: LANCOM 1823 VoIP (Annex B) / 7.23.0016 / 03.09.2007 (SerialNo=069081800093)
P-Preferred-Identity: <sip:0653110904@isdn;user=phone>
Content-Length: 398

v=0
o=- 2493784350 2493784350 IN IP4 192.168.228.227
s=-
c=IN IP4 192.168.228.227
t=0 0
m=audio 41076 RTP/AVP 8 0 106 18 2 104 103 101 102
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:106 G726-40/8000
a=rtpmap:18 G729/8000
a=rtpmap:2 G726-32/8000
a=rtpmap:104 G726-24/8000
a=rtpmap:103 G726-16/8000
a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000
a=rtpmap:102 tone/8000
a=fmtp:18 annexb=no
----------------------------

The same packet is received.

Can some-one give me advice or an solution ?!?!

 

[marcel]

EXTRA INFO

My ISDN number to call, connected to the LANCOM is 0344664909
And the nummer from which I am calling is 0653110904

SO I need to see the caller-ID, which must be 0653110904
(or 653110904) whitout the leading 0

 

[Ralph]

Good morning

Good morning,

I don't think there is a solution for this problem inside the current version of 3CX.

The caller ID is passed in the field: P-Preferred-Identity.
But I cannot grab that field in the 3CX system to recognise.

Are the packets structured this way from your provider or does the LANCOM 1823 structer or change them to this?

Is it possible to modify the packets using the LANCOM 1823 or some other device so that the caller ID shows up in a field recognized by 3CX?

Is it possible to change the settings on your account with your provider so that the packets are changed there?

I like your idea of having the ability to enter new fields in 3CX. If possible it would provide significantly more flexibility to the system when dealing with other hardware, providers and expanding capability to include things like caller-name. I recommend that you post that idea to the "Feature Requests" forum. Who knows it may be easier for them to do that then continue adding and/or modifying static fields in the system.

Take care

 

[marcel]

Thanks Ralph.


I'm switching to PATTON for this problem.
Even LANCOM does not give any helpful support on this matter.

I found it pleaserable to read that would agree with flexibel fields.

Take care.