tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421651675096124175.post3651792308866518037..comments2024-03-02T21:14:43.287-08:00Comments on Unified Communications Guerrilla: Using the Cisco UCM Route Next Hop functionality for Inter-Office Site Code DialingWilliam Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02559158040046322600noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421651675096124175.post-80426424151245909382014-03-31T08:27:21.537-07:002014-03-31T08:27:21.537-07:00Cris,
That is expected behavior. The calling part...Cris,<br /><br />That is expected behavior. The calling party display is going to show the final destination pattern. To change this default behavior you can use the service parameters: <br /><br />1. "Always Display Original Dialed Number". This is set to "false" by default. Setting it to "true" will cause the phone display (if the calling party is a Cisco IP phone) to show the number as it was dialed by the user. The considerations here is that it is a system wide setting and affects translated and redirected call display. Also, following the logic of this article a primary consideration is that the name display of the final party is not rendered on the calling station.<br /><br />2. "Name Display for Original Dialed Number when Translated". This parameter only applies when parameter 1 is set to True. it is a way to work around that last issue I noted above. This parameter is available on the 9.1(2) system in my lab but I hear that it is not available on CUCM 8.6. Actually, I may have heard that from you, if you were the individual that exchanged messages with me on Twitter ;-)<br /><br /><br />HTH.<br /><br />-Bill (@ucguerrilla)UC Guerrillahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14454391786438461256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421651675096124175.post-10118400638677467802014-03-29T18:46:12.576-07:002014-03-29T18:46:12.576-07:00hello Bill
I have a question. I have the same sce...hello Bill<br /><br />I have a question. I have the same scenario as you do, however on my calling phone the display shows the +e164 number instead of the 3 digit site code + 4 digit Extension. where do i need to look to get it fixed?Crishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16707202969439950856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421651675096124175.post-18197177321108961762014-03-28T15:15:40.459-07:002014-03-28T15:15:40.459-07:00I agree, it can get wackadoo. In my case, the cust...I agree, it can get wackadoo. In my case, the customer requirements were very specific and there was only one reasonable option.<br /><br />You have to be judicious with features like RNH. It is also critical that your core dial plan has some sort of structure because placement in your dial plan is pretty key.<br /><br />Thanks for reading and for the comment. <br /><br />-Bill (@ucguerrilla)<br />UC Guerrillahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14454391786438461256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421651675096124175.post-14801541153237606012014-03-28T14:43:55.227-07:002014-03-28T14:43:55.227-07:00Very interesting, never thought to use the Route N...Very interesting, never thought to use the Route Next Hop.. functionality for calling party transformation. I have used it before to steer original calls, but in my case we were sending a call to a different gateway for the same called party number based on calling party number. That was also an interesting use case. The problem with Route Next Hop fundamentally is that the double decker approach required makes the dial plan gnarly. Good write up here, very interesting. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06315830557765610907noreply@blogger.com