NLOG BC9

[nithin6926]

thread806-767724

Hi Guys

Referencing to the old thread, I have similar query, I learned that the NLOG in BC9 is a market adaption. A patch would have been implemented.

We have a BC9 with 6 LIMS.. the 6th is recently added.. (Yeah I know,, we did not upgrade the system yet )

the issue is NLOG works fine on the older 5 LIMs with a leading "0" which helps when we call out. but on the newer LIM the number is logged without a leading "0".. this is frustrating for the users... who think that the new phones are not working well.

Big Guys, do you remember anything about this??

 

[fcpli]

Nithin,

Seems that the addition of LIM is not complete....
In BC9 there might be a problem with the copying of tha data of some program units. In your case, if the leading "0" is created with NUTRI, try to copy NUD data with LADCI from LIM1 to LIM6. If you have something in RONDP or RODNP, check the LIM6 values and, if necessary, copy EAP1S1/s2 and EAP2 also. The original patch package is in KLP1D2 (if I remember), in the German version also in SLP60 - for their market only.
Start with this, maybe it solves your problem.

fcpli

 

[nithin6926]

Hi FCPLI

Thanks for the info, but I was not able to find any entry such relevance in NUTRI/RONDP.

But then I have copied the Program units you have suggested.. which again requires a LIM reload.
I'll have to do it later in the after hours. I'll get back once done. Hope this PU copying helps..

--
Nithin

 

[fcpli]

With LADCI there should be no reload. If so, then something is really wrong.....

 

[nithin6926]

Hi FCPLI

I meant that I am doing the reload manually. I did it, even then the problem persists

Any more program units I need to copy... or is it required that we need to get the patch anyway.. which I dont think is available anymore with anybody

Thanks much.

--
Nithin

 

[fcpli]

If you are reloadingbefore dump, yuo'll go back to the old data. The patch?
If your NLOG is working in the old LIMs, it is there, the problem looks like to be in the transferring of the data to the new LIM6.
If you want to be sure, print out PCLOP:UNIT=KLP1D2, and then compare this with PCLOP:UNIT=KLP1D2,LIM=6;, they should be the same. If I remember correct, the leading "0" is not in that patch, it might be in SLP60 (if you are using ISDN), so compare the PCLOP from SLP60 also. If no luck, this needs more investigation.

fcpli

 

[nithin6926]

Hi FCPLI

I took dump before reloading ( was actually a scheduled one ).

the prints
PCLOP:UNIT=KLP1D2,LIM=1;
PCLOP:UNIT=KLP1D2,LIM=6;
and
PCLOP:UNIT=SLP60,LIM=1;
PCLOP:UNIT=SLP60,LIM=6;

are identical. dont know where I am missing..

Thanks
Nithin

--
Nithin

 

[fcpli]

What I meant, was to copy the unit data, check if it helps, then dump, not reload. The patch seems to be in all LIMs, so that is not the issue, just the data mismatch between the LIMs.

fcpli

 

[nithin6926]

Hi FCPLI

the dump and reload was only after copying the units. I have no clues about this and I just going by you.
still the call log is not as it is on older LIMs.

Thanks
Nithin

--
Nithin

 

[fcpli]

Nithin,

Yuo are telling that the "new" phones won't work. Did you check this with an "old" phone in LIM6?
Secondly, did you check the function before reloading?
If the above is done, then try to create a NUTRI, like NUTRI:ENTRY=x,CNVTYP=2,PRE=0,NUMTYP=z,ROU=y;, where ENTRY is the first digit of your extensin number. Then change SERV D10 with ROCAC to "1". Check what happens. Note that in this case you might se "00" in the old LIM's extensions. This just to test....
If these tricks won't help, I need a trace, but let's go the easier way first.


fcpli

 

[fcpli]

One more thing:

There are patches for this function also in some other units (KLP1T1, KLP1T2, KLPH, KLP1D1, KLP1L), but seems that the leading zero should be implemented in KLP1L. Check, if you have this unit in your system, also in LIM6.
Note that this is just from my memory.....

fcpli

 

[nithin6926]

Hi FCPLI

Finally, not knowing what to do further.. New LIM is re-installed. and everything seems to work fine.

Thanks for your support
Nithin

--
Nithin