CIL IN BC.12

[aau2]

Hi all. sorry for my english
We have a MD110 in bc.10, and this week we have upgrade to bc12. Before in BC.10 in the calling record, one call diverted to an external number shows dialed the external number and dialling teh extension that have te diversion.
Now in BC.12 one call diverted to an external number shows as dialled number the extension, and it isn't show the number diverted.
Is there any form or patch to show this type of calling in the call loging record like bc.10.????
thanks.

 

[rfpui]

You nead patch S103025A

 

[aau2]

I don´t have this patch in the unit RMP, where I could get the patch?

 

[rfpui]

unit CLP

 

[aau2]

Hi RFPUI, this are the patch of the unit clp
<PCLOP:UNIT=CLP;
PATCH LOG DATA

UNIT: CLP LIM: 1
CI TYPE STATUS SIZE IA/SIGNO/ADDR CORRSTART
S102594A PROGRAM CONF 154 00000828 0000B5D6
S102594A PROGRAM CONF 150 0000409C 0000B670
S102594A PROGRAM CONF 386 0000696A 0000B706
S102594A PROGRAM CONF 44 00008612 0000B888
S102594A PROGRAM CONF 44 000087DE 0000B8B4
S102594A PROGRAM CONF 44 000098F4 0000B8E0
END

 

[aau2]

Hi all, have Anybody the patch S103025A??

And other strange thing in BC12. A call diverted to an external number when I use the form 2 in CLINP, the record is Ok. But when I use form=5 in CLINP the record doesn´t work.
For Example. The extension 09009 have one external diversion to 00654895645, I call from 09003 and the record is in Form 2:
02151257 00004 X 00 00654895645 09009 00 001001001
the extension 09009 do a call to 00654895645, and "X" is an external diversion
in form 5
02151257 00004 X 00 09009 09003 00 001001001
the extension 09003 do a call to 09009, and 09009 have an external diversion but I don´t know the external number.

The form 2 and the form 5 are identical.
<CLFOP:FORM=5;
OUTPUT FORMAT DATA
FORM DATA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5 3M 4J 4P 1M 5K 1M 4N 1M 2I 1M
5A 5C 1M 20G 1M 10E 1M 15D 1M 6F
1M 3S 1M 2R 1M 2O* 1M 9T
END

<CLFOP:FORM=2;
OUTPUT FORMAT DATA
FORM DATA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 3M 4J 4P 1M 5K 1M 4N 1M 2I 1M
5A 5C 1M 20G 1M 10E 1M 15D 1M 6F
1M 3S 1M 2R 1M 2O* 1M 9T
END

Why do the forms work different?

 

[mdman]

There was Market Adaptation done to change the call records for ECF calls. This change has only been done for flexible formats.
This adaptation was wrongly put in the systems for every market.
The patch is included in SP6. To get only the patch you know what to do... contact your local supplier.

 

[dusyi]

Since BC12 SP5 exist Patch S103028A in unit clop
"Access Code should not be printed for ECF calls"
You can passivate the patch.

Since BC12 SP6 exist Patch S103717A in unit CLOP
"CIL output changed from BC11 to BC12 for
ECF/flexibleformat"

Upgrade your System to SP6.

 

[aau2]

Thanks dusyi.
Another question with the call record.
In the calls from external number and transferred to a external number in BC.12 I get these three calls
02151607 00005 I 09009 658457893 00 09009
the extension receives a external call from 658457893.
02151607 00002 00 00666454578 09009 00 001001001
The extension 09009 makes a call to 666454578
02151609 00022 T 00 00666454578 001000000 00 001001001
The extensión 09009 transfer the call from 666454578 to 658457893, but only shows the incoming route of the call
In BC.10 the two fist call are identical, but the third call was
02151609 00022 T 00 00666454578 658457893 00 001001001
We could know the external number, but in BC.12 it doesn't work.
Does it work in SP6? or in SP5 is neccesary some patch.

 

[rfpui]

It is all what I kow off this patch S103025A

Short. Descr : Faulty CIL record at transfer to ECF-Extension

Fault.Descr. and .Explanation

CIL is not working according to FS document 51/155 17-APD 101 02
Uen K4 "Station Message Detail Recording/Call Information Logging",

The fault happens when an extension transfers an incoming call to
another extension that has External Follow-me (ECF) active. At this
traffic case, CIL generates a record (conditional code "X") with
wrong numbers in several fields, as follows:

When Standard Format is used:
-Wrong Calling Party Number in the 2nd "X" record at transfer after answer
-Wrong Dialled Number at transfer before answer.

When Flexible Format is used
-Calling Party Number, Dialled Number and Charged Number fields are wrong in the 2nd "X" record at transfer after answer
-Wrong Calling Party Number at transfer before answer. */

This patch fixes these faults.

 

[aau2]

Thanks rfpui. I will wait for SP6.

 

[rfpui]

Don’t wait.
Ask your local service about this patch.
I can’t send this patch now. ( No ask why )
This patch is for SP4 and SP 5

 

[aau2]

Thanks for all rfpui