[SIPForum-discussion] Cisco 7940-60 does not record calls with tel-uri "From"
Andrea Puddu
androjoker at hotmail.com
Mon Mar 3 13:52:22 UTC 2008
Lorri,
does Broadsoft use "tel uri" or "sip uri" in the "To" filed of the INVITE?
Andrea
From: lorriw at goait.com
To: androjoker at hotmail.com; discussion at sipforum.org
Subject: RE: [SIPForum-discussion] Cisco 7940-60 does not record calls with tel-uri "From"
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 07:38:27 -0600
We use Cisco 7940-60 with Broadsoft and have not had the same
experience.
Lorri
From:
discussion-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:discussion-bounces at sipforum.org] On
Behalf Of Andrea Puddu
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 5:36 AM
To: discussion at sipforum.org
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-discussion] Cisco 7940-60 does not record calls
with tel-uri "From"
Does
anybody work with this kind of phones?
I can't find any discussion talking about this fault ... but it seemes to me to
be a serious fault.
Is the tel-uri a standard format acceptable by the phones, is it?
Thanks,
Andrea
From: androjoker at hotmail.com
To: discussion at sipforum.org
Subject: [SIPForum-discussion] Cisco 7940-60 does not record calls with tel-uri
"From"
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:39:26 +0000
Hi guys,
I noticed that some Cisco phones (7940-7960) does not record calls arriving
"From" a tel-uri instead of a a sip-uri:
From: "Andrew" <tel:xxxxx;phone-context:+39>;tag=xxxxxxxxxx
instead of
From: "Andrew" <sip:xxxxx at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx>;tag=xxxxxxxxxx
So these kind of calls are not stored in "missed calls" and
"received calls". Has anyone noticed this issue?
Thanks,
Andrea
Messenger
Giochi Prenditi
una pausa e sfida i tuoi amici a Ladybird su Messenger!
Raccolta
foto di Windows Live Ordina e condividi le tue foto in maniera semplice e veloce!
_________________________________________________________________
Scarica GRATIS le tue emoticon preferite!
http://intrattenimento.it.msn.com/emoticon/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20080303/9fae9871/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the discussion
mailing list