Internal Name Not Showing on Attended Transfer

Will address this in the bug report.

A quick editorial comment though…

It is correct to put device in the sip_additional.conf file. The CONNECTEDLINE() ability added new complications to dealing with this, most of those scenarios had been addressed. Apparently this one had not so we’ll have to look further into it and hopefully will be able to address it as the other ones have.

The reason device is put as the cnam is that the device can be used for multiple users and thus the macro-user-callerid is suppose to set the proper callerid. The CONNECTED line, as mentioned, has added some great new capabilities but posed some challenges around this.

Thanks Philippe,
Is there anything we can do in the meantime as a workaround by modifying the macro-user-callerid so it sets the correct User Name instead of “device”?

step one:

someone go into the ticket, and put a very concise set of steps that will reproduce the bug because if you go to that ticket you will see I couldn’t but may not have read all this carefully enough.

The ticket is: #5374

I’ve added this feature request that is related: #5395 but it is not a ‘fix’ for this, at least I hope it’s not the only fix for this.

I have found that in playing around with caller-id stuff I had set the following in my sip.conf

trustrpid = yes
sendrpid = pai

These settings were causing the CID info to show up as "device ". When I commented them out the caller ID display started working as expected again. The drawback is I guess CONNECTEDLINE() to update the Phone’s display as to who you are talking to rely on rpid(??) to do its magic. So I believe as Philippe said this is a trade-off.

I do not know if there is a workaround that satisfies both cases.

these are simply what are required, depending on the phone model, to make the CONNECTEDLINE() update to work.

In my case with Aastra phones I have sendprid=true (not PAI). This simply indicates whether to use P-Assert-Identiy vs. the Remote-Party-ID field to send this info.

In any case, with mine it all works and no ‘device’ for this scenario as I described in the ticket.

So after commenting out ‘trustrpid=yes’ and ‘sendrpid=yes’ my CLID is working ok for most cases EXCEPT for attended xfers. For attended xfers I am still seeing e.g.

A(john x701) —calls—> B(mary x706)
mary correctly sees “Call From John” on her display
mary answers, and then wants to xfer —call–> C(kathy x719)
mary dials *2 and then enters 7-1-9-#
kathy’s phone starts ringing but shows “device <706>” on her Caller ID
kathy answers the call and hears "hi kathy you have a call from John"
mary(B) now hangs up and A(john)—connected—>C(kathy)
Kathy’s phone now shows the correct caller ID “John” on her display.

this is with Freepbx 2.8.1.4 and Asterisk 1.8.7, Polycom IP550/560 phones. I think the dialpan that deals with attended xfers needs to call the macro-user-callerid maybe?

rogermt,

Thank you for this post! We are running on FreePBX 2.10 with our extensions, trunks, routes, IVR, etc all configured, but internal CID was still showing device on our Cisco SPA 3XX/5XX phones. When I changed the functions.inc.php file to what you mentioned above (after backing up the file), and then confirming that each extension is set to trustrpid = yes, sendrpid = send-remote-party-id header, I can now see internal calls from ext to ext are sending CallerID info.

I believe this change in functions.inc.php should be in an upgrade, if others can find this to be a sure fix to internal CID.

Hello all,

I applied the fix from rogermt to my /var/www/html/admin/modules/core/functions.inc.php file and it had fixed internal callerid until an update a day or two ago. Other than rolling back (if I can), what is the necessary information to make this work? I did noticed the functions.inc.php file is back to saying ‘description’, but when I put in ‘name’ instead, it didn’t work.

What does this need to say now? Or will there be an actual fix for this in an upcoming version? If I have to wait, I’ll just do what I did before and manually change it, but I need someone to help me find this needs to say instead of ‘description’

Thanks!