Caller-ID: SIP From vs. P-Asserted-Identity
Question for the experts: We have a scenario where a SIP user originates a call to the PSTN (not 9-1-1) with a SIP From: header containing one DID and P-Asserted-Identity showing a different DID. We expect the carrier to use the P-Asserted-Identity for billing and recordkeeping but send the SIP From: out as the CLID to be displayed to the called party. Typically this is done in a call center type scenario where an agent wants the CLID to display the main number of the agent pool and not the specific DID of the agent. Another scenario is a customer PRI-based PBX that hairpins inbound calls back out to a traveling user and wants to preserve the original caller's information. One of our terminating carriers uses the P-Asserted-Identity as the displayed CLID and not the SIP From:. I feel that this is not correct. Opinions? Numbers have been changed to protect the guilty... TO: <sip:8055550123 at www.xxx.yyy.zzz;user=phone> FROM: "Fred Flintstone"<sip:+18055550199 at www.xxx.yyy.zzz;user=phone>;tag=1689985881-1343063740200- P-Asserted-Identity: "Fred Flintstone"<sip:+18055550177 at www.xxx.yyy.zzz;user=phone> TIME/DATE: Mon Jul 23 17:15:39 2012 (GMT) RESULT: Called party (8055550123) is seeing 8055550177 as calling party's caller ID instead of 8055550199 -- -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
Almost all commercial softswitch and SBC equipment we've run into prioritises CLID presentation thusly: 1. P-Asserted-Identity 2. Remote-Party-ID 3. From However, this is not so ubiquitous that it can be counted on one hundred percent. Some folks don't do it. Some only use RPID (even though it's a long-expired draft supplanted by PAI). Some expect RPID or PAI to play only a supplementary role, with their various screening and presentation options, and thus deny calls where the CLID in the PAI or RPID is inconsistent with the CLID in the From. Most, however, look at PAI, then RPID, then From. I can't speak to whether this is "correct" or is grounded in some sort of best-practical recommendation somewhere. It's just what they do. On 07/23/2012 05:08 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
Question for the experts:
We have a scenario where a SIP user originates a call to the PSTN (not 9-1-1) with a SIP From: header containing one DID and P-Asserted-Identity showing a different DID.
We expect the carrier to use the P-Asserted-Identity for billing and recordkeeping but send the SIP From: out as the CLID to be displayed to the called party.
Typically this is done in a call center type scenario where an agent wants the CLID to display the main number of the agent pool and not the specific DID of the agent. Another scenario is a customer PRI-based PBX that hairpins inbound calls back out to a traveling user and wants to preserve the original caller's information.
One of our terminating carriers uses the P-Asserted-Identity as the displayed CLID and not the SIP From:. I feel that this is not correct. Opinions?
Numbers have been changed to protect the guilty...
TO: <sip:8055550123 at www.xxx.yyy.zzz;user=phone>
FROM: "Fred Flintstone"<sip:+18055550199 at www.xxx.yyy.zzz;user=phone>;tag=1689985881-1343063740200- P-Asserted-Identity: "Fred Flintstone"<sip:+18055550177 at www.xxx.yyy.zzz;user=phone>
TIME/DATE: Mon Jul 23 17:15:39 2012 (GMT)
RESULT: Called party (8055550123) is seeing 8055550177 as calling party's caller ID instead of 8055550199
-- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 235 E Ponce de Leon Ave Suite 106 Decatur, GA 30030 Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Fax: +1-404-961-1892 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.alexbalashov.com/
Jay, I agree with Alex in that my research on the issue showed that Caller-ID was most often taken from P-A-I followed by From, with some people still using the now-deprecated RPID. For passing the billing identifier, some network operators, carriers and ITSPs are using another header, P-Charge-Info, which I've been in the process of documenting for several years: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-york-sipping-p-charge-info (and am hoping will move along further in the next few months). The operators (and my prior employer was one of them) are using P-Charge-Info to carry a billing identifier that is completely separate from the identifier used for Caller-ID. They do that only between themselves, i.e. the header is stripped before being sent on to others. This is certainly not the only way to pass this kind of billing identifier, but it's one of the ones out there. Regards, Dan P.S. I am NOT with Sonus Networks, even though the latest version of the document looks like I am. The next version will correct that. On Jul 23, 2012, at 5:21 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Almost all commercial softswitch and SBC equipment we've run into prioritises CLID presentation thusly:
1. P-Asserted-Identity 2. Remote-Party-ID 3. From
However, this is not so ubiquitous that it can be counted on one hundred percent. Some folks don't do it. Some only use RPID (even though it's a long-expired draft supplanted by PAI). Some expect RPID or PAI to play only a supplementary role, with their various screening and presentation options, and thus deny calls where the CLID in the PAI or RPID is inconsistent with the CLID in the From.
Most, however, look at PAI, then RPID, then From. I can't speak to whether this is "correct" or is grounded in some sort of best-practical recommendation somewhere. It's just what they do.
On 07/23/2012 05:08 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
Question for the experts:
We have a scenario where a SIP user originates a call to the PSTN (not 9-1-1) with a SIP From: header containing one DID and P-Asserted-Identity showing a different DID.
We expect the carrier to use the P-Asserted-Identity for billing and recordkeeping but send the SIP From: out as the CLID to be displayed to the called party.
Typically this is done in a call center type scenario where an agent wants the CLID to display the main number of the agent pool and not the specific DID of the agent. Another scenario is a customer PRI-based PBX that hairpins inbound calls back out to a traveling user and wants to preserve the original caller's information.
One of our terminating carriers uses the P-Asserted-Identity as the displayed CLID and not the SIP From:. I feel that this is not correct. Opinions?
Numbers have been changed to protect the guilty...
TO: <sip:8055550123 at www.xxx.yyy.zzz;user=phone>
FROM: "Fred Flintstone"<sip:+18055550199 at www.xxx.yyy.zzz;user=phone>;tag=1689985881-1343063740200- P-Asserted-Identity: "Fred Flintstone"<sip:+18055550177 at www.xxx.yyy.zzz;user=phone>
TIME/DATE: Mon Jul 23 17:15:39 2012 (GMT)
RESULT: Called party (8055550123) is seeing 8055550177 as calling party's caller ID instead of 8055550199
-- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 235 E Ponce de Leon Ave Suite 106 Decatur, GA 30030 Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Fax: +1-404-961-1892 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.alexbalashov.com/ _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Dan York dyork at lodestar2.com Phone: +1-802-735-1624 skype:danyork http://www.danyork.com/ http://twitter.com/danyork
Set a Diversion: header to specify the CallerID number. Example: Diversion: <sip:+12125551212 at 172.17.5.11>;reason=rcf The ;reason=whatever is optional, I don't know of any carriers which use it. -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Jay Hennigan Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 5:08 PM To: VoiceOps Subject: [VoiceOps] Caller-ID: SIP From vs. P-Asserted-Identity Question for the experts: We have a scenario where a SIP user originates a call to the PSTN (not 9-1-1) with a SIP From: header containing one DID and P-Asserted-Identity showing a different DID. We expect the carrier to use the P-Asserted-Identity for billing and recordkeeping but send the SIP From: out as the CLID to be displayed to the called party. Typically this is done in a call center type scenario where an agent wants the CLID to display the main number of the agent pool and not the specific DID of the agent. Another scenario is a customer PRI-based PBX that hairpins inbound calls back out to a traveling user and wants to preserve the original caller's information. One of our terminating carriers uses the P-Asserted-Identity as the displayed CLID and not the SIP From:. I feel that this is not correct. Opinions? Numbers have been changed to protect the guilty... TO: <sip:8055550123 at www.xxx.yyy.zzz;user=phone> FROM: "Fred Flintstone"<sip:+18055550199 at www.xxx.yyy.zzz;user=phone>;tag=1689985881-1343063740200- P-Asserted-Identity: "Fred Flintstone"<sip:+18055550177 at www.xxx.yyy.zzz;user=phone> TIME/DATE: Mon Jul 23 17:15:39 2012 (GMT) RESULT: Called party (8055550123) is seeing 8055550177 as calling party's caller ID instead of 8055550199 -- -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Diversion is appropriate for the forwarding scenario, but not necessarily some of the others. On 07/23/2012 05:34 PM, Eric Wieling wrote:
Set a Diversion: header to specify the CallerID number.
Example: Diversion: <sip:+12125551212 at 172.17.5.11>;reason=rcf
The ;reason=whatever is optional, I don't know of any carriers which use it.
-----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Jay Hennigan Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 5:08 PM To: VoiceOps Subject: [VoiceOps] Caller-ID: SIP From vs. P-Asserted-Identity
Question for the experts:
We have a scenario where a SIP user originates a call to the PSTN (not 9-1-1) with a SIP From: header containing one DID and P-Asserted-Identity showing a different DID.
We expect the carrier to use the P-Asserted-Identity for billing and recordkeeping but send the SIP From: out as the CLID to be displayed to the called party.
Typically this is done in a call center type scenario where an agent wants the CLID to display the main number of the agent pool and not the specific DID of the agent. Another scenario is a customer PRI-based PBX that hairpins inbound calls back out to a traveling user and wants to preserve the original caller's information.
One of our terminating carriers uses the P-Asserted-Identity as the displayed CLID and not the SIP From:. I feel that this is not correct. Opinions?
Numbers have been changed to protect the guilty...
TO: <sip:8055550123 at www.xxx.yyy.zzz;user=phone>
FROM: "Fred Flintstone"<sip:+18055550199 at www.xxx.yyy.zzz;user=phone>;tag=1689985881-1343063740200- P-Asserted-Identity: "Fred Flintstone"<sip:+18055550177 at www.xxx.yyy.zzz;user=phone>
TIME/DATE: Mon Jul 23 17:15:39 2012 (GMT)
RESULT: Called party (8055550123) is seeing 8055550177 as calling party's caller ID instead of 8055550199
-- -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 235 E Ponce de Leon Ave Suite 106 Decatur, GA 30030 Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Fax: +1-404-961-1892 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.alexbalashov.com/
On 7/23/12 2:34 PM, Eric Wieling wrote:
Set a Diversion: header to specify the CallerID number.
Example: Diversion: <sip:+12125551212 at 172.17.5.11>;reason=rcf
The ;reason=whatever is optional, I don't know of any carriers which use it.
That would likely work, but it is easier said than done. Sometimes it isn't diverted. An agent in a pool wants to display the pool inbound number in CLID but keep the individual number for billing and CDRs. Or the IAD on site doesn't support diversion headers, etc. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
I have to agree with Alex on this one. PAI RPID From Only one matters and they are weighted in that order. If you need the billing number to be different than the highest applicable in the above list, insert a diversion header and be done with it (warning not all term carriers properly obey diversion headers but it is the most correct answer) On 07/23/2012 02:45 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
On 7/23/12 2:34 PM, Eric Wieling wrote:
Set a Diversion: header to specify the CallerID number.
Example: Diversion: <sip:+12125551212 at 172.17.5.11>;reason=rcf
The ;reason=whatever is optional, I don't know of any carriers which use it. That would likely work, but it is easier said than done. Sometimes it isn't diverted. An agent in a pool wants to display the pool inbound number in CLID but keep the individual number for billing and CDRs. Or the IAD on site doesn't support diversion headers, etc.
-- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Better question, why is the carrier letting you specify the billing telephone number? Isn't that a massive security flaw? Or is this an additional layer of accounting? On Jul 23, 2012, at 22:38 , Ryan Delgrosso wrote:
I have to agree with Alex on this one.
PAI RPID From
Only one matters and they are weighted in that order.
If you need the billing number to be different than the highest applicable in the above list, insert a diversion header and be done with it (warning not all term carriers properly obey diversion headers but it is the most correct answer)
On 07/23/2012 02:45 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
On 7/23/12 2:34 PM, Eric Wieling wrote:
Set a Diversion: header to specify the CallerID number.
Example: Diversion: <sip:+12125551212 at 172.17.5.11>;reason=rcf
The ;reason=whatever is optional, I don't know of any carriers which use it. That would likely work, but it is easier said than done. Sometimes it isn't diverted. An agent in a pool wants to display the pool inbound number in CLID but keep the individual number for billing and CDRs. Or the IAD on site doesn't support diversion headers, etc.
-- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
In an inter-carrier agreement I have never seen any restrictions placed on what could or could not be sent. In end-user trunks that is largely up to how the carrier dealing with the end user wants to handle it, I can tell you for end user trunks we generally restrict the calling number to one that the customer has on their trunks, but for wholesale to other carriers we allow them to send anything since it isn't usually a bi-directional trunk in those scenarios. On 07/23/2012 07:53 PM, Paul Timmins wrote:
Better question, why is the carrier letting you specify the billing telephone number? Isn't that a massive security flaw? Or is this an additional layer of accounting?
On Jul 23, 2012, at 22:38 , Ryan Delgrosso wrote:
I have to agree with Alex on this one.
PAI RPID From
Only one matters and they are weighted in that order.
If you need the billing number to be different than the highest applicable in the above list, insert a diversion header and be done with it (warning not all term carriers properly obey diversion headers but it is the most correct answer)
On 07/23/2012 02:45 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
On 7/23/12 2:34 PM, Eric Wieling wrote:
Set a Diversion: header to specify the CallerID number.
Example: Diversion: <sip:+12125551212 at 172.17.5.11>;reason=rcf
The ;reason=whatever is optional, I don't know of any carriers which use it. That would likely work, but it is easier said than done. Sometimes it isn't diverted. An agent in a pool wants to display the pool inbound number in CLID but keep the individual number for billing and CDRs. Or the IAD on site doesn't support diversion headers, etc.
-- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Perfectly legal under 3325.8; the UAS is free to do whatever it wants to with the PAI info. For the PAI to reach the actual endpoint phone is a bit off-putting... It shows a bit more trust in the endpoint than I'm usually willing to extend, but I'm a bit curmudgeonly at times. David -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Jay Hennigan Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 14:08 To: VoiceOps Subject: [VoiceOps] Caller-ID: SIP From vs. P-Asserted-Identity Question for the experts: We have a scenario where a SIP user originates a call to the PSTN (not 9-1-1) with a SIP From: header containing one DID and P-Asserted-Identity showing a different DID. We expect the carrier to use the P-Asserted-Identity for billing and recordkeeping but send the SIP From: out as the CLID to be displayed to the called party. Typically this is done in a call center type scenario where an agent wants the CLID to display the main number of the agent pool and not the specific DID of the agent. Another scenario is a customer PRI-based PBX that hairpins inbound calls back out to a traveling user and wants to preserve the original caller's information. One of our terminating carriers uses the P-Asserted-Identity as the displayed CLID and not the SIP From:. I feel that this is not correct. Opinions? Numbers have been changed to protect the guilty... TO: <sip:8055550123 at www.xxx.yyy.zzz;user=phone> FROM: "Fred Flintstone"<sip:+18055550199 at www.xxx.yyy.zzz;user=phone>;tag=1689985881-1343063740200- P-Asserted-Identity: "Fred Flintstone"<sip:+18055550177 at www.xxx.yyy.zzz;user=phone> TIME/DATE: Mon Jul 23 17:15:39 2012 (GMT) RESULT: Called party (8055550123) is seeing 8055550177 as calling party's caller ID instead of 8055550199 -- -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system.
The best way is to define and agree with each termination carrier how they will handle it. I'm speaking about mostly sending international traffic and believe me they all want it different ways. On Jul 23, 2012, at 6:21 PM, "Hiers, David" <David.Hiers at adp.com> wrote:
Perfectly legal under 3325.8; the UAS is free to do whatever it wants to with the PAI info.
For the PAI to reach the actual endpoint phone is a bit off-putting... It shows a bit more trust in the endpoint than I'm usually willing to extend, but I'm a bit curmudgeonly at times.
David
-----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Jay Hennigan Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 14:08 To: VoiceOps Subject: [VoiceOps] Caller-ID: SIP From vs. P-Asserted-Identity
Question for the experts:
We have a scenario where a SIP user originates a call to the PSTN (not 9-1-1) with a SIP From: header containing one DID and P-Asserted-Identity showing a different DID.
We expect the carrier to use the P-Asserted-Identity for billing and recordkeeping but send the SIP From: out as the CLID to be displayed to the called party.
Typically this is done in a call center type scenario where an agent wants the CLID to display the main number of the agent pool and not the specific DID of the agent. Another scenario is a customer PRI-based PBX that hairpins inbound calls back out to a traveling user and wants to preserve the original caller's information.
One of our terminating carriers uses the P-Asserted-Identity as the displayed CLID and not the SIP From:. I feel that this is not correct. Opinions?
Numbers have been changed to protect the guilty...
TO: <sip:8055550123 at www.xxx.yyy.zzz;user=phone>
FROM: "Fred Flintstone"<sip:+18055550199 at www.xxx.yyy.zzz;user=phone>;tag=1689985881-1343063740200- P-Asserted-Identity: "Fred Flintstone"<sip:+18055550177 at www.xxx.yyy.zzz;user=phone>
TIME/DATE: Mon Jul 23 17:15:39 2012 (GMT)
RESULT: Called party (8055550123) is seeing 8055550177 as calling party's caller ID instead of 8055550199
-- -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system.
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Greetings, On Monday, July 23, 2012 07:58:29 PM Colin Brown wrote:
The best way is to define and agree with each termination carrier how they will handle it. I'm speaking about mostly sending international traffic and believe me they all want it different ways.
Does the PBX software easily accomodate something like that? Regards, J
On 7/23/12 5:32 PM, Jeff MacDonald wrote:
Greetings,
On Monday, July 23, 2012 07:58:29 PM Colin Brown wrote:
The best way is to define and agree with each termination carrier how they will handle it. I'm speaking about mostly sending international traffic and believe me they all want it different ways.
Does the PBX software easily accomodate something like that?
The situation comes up most often when migrating a customer from a TDM-based PRI to a PRI delivered over SIP to an IAD. Also in the call center/agent scenario described earlier. In the PRI/TDM world, the PBX is quite capable of sending the inbound CLID on a hairpinned call, and the RBOC is happy to deliver whatever is sent. We want to use PAI to keep our CDRs straight, ensure that 9-1-1 routes correctly, handle subpoenas easily, etc. We have two primary domestic termination carriers. One takes the information in the From: for display on CLID, the other uses PAI. RFC3325 section 7 refers to inserting an "id" token to the privacy header field to preclude forwarding PAI to an untrusted party (which I would think includes an end user's CLID display). Whether this would result in the From: being used or just a "Private" display, I don't know and I haven't found the appropriate knob on any of our gear yet to test it. Section 8 of the same RFC seems to indicate that how or if PAI is passed on is somewhat of a crapshoot. My inquiry to the list was to see if any form of consensus has been reached in the decade since this RFC was published. Summary so far of on-list and off-list replies: 1. Use a diversion header. * Not recommended if call was not actually diverted. * Legacy PBX via PRI doesn't tell if diverted or not. 2. Carriers generally prioritize PAI then RPID then From for CLID. 3. Contact the carrier and ask them to use From. Reasonable carriers should be able to do this on a per-trunk-group basis. 4. Sending both PAI and RPID is bad, especially if they are different. We are pursuing option 3. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
On 07/24/2012 12:50 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
3. Contact the carrier and ask them to use From. Reasonable carriers should be able to do this on a per-trunk-group basis.
Another option is to strip PAI and RPID before sending calls to them, so that they have to use From, because there's nothing else. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 235 E Ponce de Leon Ave Suite 106 Decatur, GA 30030 Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Fax: +1-404-961-1892 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.alexbalashov.com/
Some systems (such as BroadSoft Broadworks) only use diversion headers to describe historical information about a call was routed. I don't think in these cases the Diversion header is meant to have any impact on delivered caller ID or charge number. I've only even recently come across someone wanting to use the diversion header for this, and they didn't have a good reason to say why except that another carrier had supported it and they have a checkbox in their system to enable it. -Scott -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Jay Hennigan Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 12:50 AM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Caller-ID: SIP From vs. P-Asserted-Identity On 7/23/12 5:32 PM, Jeff MacDonald wrote:
Greetings,
On Monday, July 23, 2012 07:58:29 PM Colin Brown wrote:
The best way is to define and agree with each termination carrier how they will handle it. I'm speaking about mostly sending international traffic and believe me they all want it different ways.
Does the PBX software easily accomodate something like that?
The situation comes up most often when migrating a customer from a TDM-based PRI to a PRI delivered over SIP to an IAD. Also in the call center/agent scenario described earlier. In the PRI/TDM world, the PBX is quite capable of sending the inbound CLID on a hairpinned call, and the RBOC is happy to deliver whatever is sent. We want to use PAI to keep our CDRs straight, ensure that 9-1-1 routes correctly, handle subpoenas easily, etc. We have two primary domestic termination carriers. One takes the information in the From: for display on CLID, the other uses PAI. RFC3325 section 7 refers to inserting an "id" token to the privacy header field to preclude forwarding PAI to an untrusted party (which I would think includes an end user's CLID display). Whether this would result in the From: being used or just a "Private" display, I don't know and I haven't found the appropriate knob on any of our gear yet to test it. Section 8 of the same RFC seems to indicate that how or if PAI is passed on is somewhat of a crapshoot. My inquiry to the list was to see if any form of consensus has been reached in the decade since this RFC was published. Summary so far of on-list and off-list replies: 1. Use a diversion header. * Not recommended if call was not actually diverted. * Legacy PBX via PRI doesn't tell if diverted or not. 2. Carriers generally prioritize PAI then RPID then From for CLID. 3. Contact the carrier and ask them to use From. Reasonable carriers should be able to do this on a per-trunk-group basis. 4. Sending both PAI and RPID is bad, especially if they are different. We are pursuing option 3. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On 07/24/2012 04:27 PM, Scott Berkman wrote:
Some systems (such as BroadSoft Broadworks) only use diversion headers to describe historical information about a call was routed.
That IS the purpose of the Diversion standard & concept: indicate the provenance of a forwarded call. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 235 E Ponce de Leon Ave Suite 106 Decatur, GA 30030 Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Fax: +1-404-961-1892 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.alexbalashov.com/
participants (10)
-
abalashov＠evaristesys.com -
David.Hiers＠adp.com -
dyork＠lodestar2.com -
EWieling＠nyigc.com -
jam＠zoidtechnologies.com -
jay＠west.net -
paul＠timmins.net -
ryandelgrosso＠gmail.com -
scott＠sberkman.net -
zavoid＠gmail.com