Problem routing to an external # via vector step

[tyau]

Are you using a SIP Trunk

If you have already checked your COR to make sure the 800 number is allowed then read the following:

If you are using a SIP trunk test, it may restrict a call on their 800 network if the caller id is not a native DID on the SIP trunk. SIP trunks require at least a valid caller id to make an 800 # call. Sometimes it may require that number to be native depending on how you have your service set up.

Try making a non 800 number call from the same vdn/vector combo with a test step that will route a call to your desk phone or your cell phone. Also make sure that on your ARS table the call would take the same route as the 800 # call. Create a test route if you need to and point the digit analysis of your desk phone or cell phone to that test route. If the call goes through, check the caller id so that you can use it later to see if that number allows you to use that number to make an 800 call on that network.

Now change your public unknown numbering to the number you received on the caller id on the avaya extension you will be using to make the 800 number test call. You can now do a lis tra sta on your station and test it as if the vdn was making an outbound call.

[ssmokinjoe]

Solved!!

Hello again Bill,
Finally out of the trenches for a few to post the solution to the issue I was having. I hope that this will help someone else.

In order to get this to work I needed to add the number to the "ars digit analysis table"

ch ars ana 1877 location all
added the complete dialed string
assigned it a min/max of 11
assigned the route pattern that should be used
call type of "fnpa"
and that was it.. it worked..

I really hope this will help someone else the way that I have been helped..

[marzahn]

My Vector (Corrected)

Hi Bill,
Thanks for reaching out; it has been a bit crazy here as well, so much so that I have had to put this aside for now and dedicate myself to creating new MDM profiles on a MAC... I still need to get this working and will continue to do some testing and re-configuring when time permits. Thank you for the help so far. I hope your expansion goes well, good luck.

I reviewed my original vector and found mistakes. In steps 2 and 9. I replaced 22 with 12.

[fazil3]

I have something like the below for something similar. You can try.

16 goto step 20 if digits = 5


20 route to number 9187785904xx with cov y if unconditionally
21 stop

You can get a "list trace tac xxx" may be. It may give some info if the call actually outpulses.

[ssmokinjoe]

Hi Bill,
Thanks for reaching out; it has been a bit crazy here as well, so much so that I have had to put this aside for now and dedicate myself to creating new MDM profiles on a MAC... I still need to get this working and will continue to do some testing and re-configuring when time permits. Thank you for the help so far. I hope your expansion goes well, good luck.

[marzahn]

Could I See What You Have So Far?

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. We are expaning and things are a bit crazy lately. If you still need help perhaps I can help you shoot these troubles.

[ssmokinjoe]

Good afternoon,
I was able to do some testing but am already here longer that I should be... Will try to post results off-line. I was not successful in my endeavor.. Please have a great rest of the week and enjoy your weekend..

Regards,

Joe

[ssmokinjoe]

How do you test for . . .

Time of day vs.business hours,
Agent staffing, availability, or lack thereof
Building emergencies
Bad weather outages
Early shut-down or team meetings

For example you may need to use several of the test steps above to "go-to" a single route-to step. <--- I think I know what you mean by this statement.

I have been working on writing my test VDN and vectors for the better part of the day; I decided to put them down on paper first since I have been having issues with my client software losing communication with my server since the upgrade. I think that this will allow me to look at it differently and help me begin to document these vectors.

I will try to get some testing done today before I leave for the rest of the week; I am the only one here that works on the phone system (in the process of training a backup person) so I can't leave it to someone else to test for me.. If I am able to test I will post results today, if not I will be back on it first thing Monday morning.

[ssmokinjoe]

Point well taken...

[marzahn]

I'm glad you have a sense of humor Joe!

There is certainly enough stress in this business. So I take every chance I can to sneak in a smile. Looking forward to seeing your results.

[ssmokinjoe]

Hi Richa and Bill,
I am still here; I apologize that I have been away lately; working on contracts for vendor support and trying to schedule and IP Flex upgrade at one of our branches. I am also beginning to create the test VDN and Vector which have to done using a DID since it does work when I dial in to the call center internally.

I really do appreciate you taking the time out of your day to help me with this and hope that one day I will know enough to be able to pay it forward. I am only in the office 3:30 today but am blocking some time out on my calendar to get to this and make some test calls. Once that is done I will post the trace and the events.

Thank you,

Joe

[marzahn]

Right you are Richa!

We do need to see a list trace as it could be trunk to trunk transfer is off etc etc so its all conjecture.

As for building vectors i would always keep to a set specification , for instance i would not use Bills method but send to a new vector where all my route to statements are , this is easier for me to maintain and keep a track of , also we heavily utilize variables to keep our vectors as short and maintainable as possible.

That looks like a good system you have there. I wonder where Joe went. Perhaps if we were both charging $200/per hour he woldn't be away for 5 days.

[richa164]

We do need to see a list trace as it could be trunk to trunk transfer is off etc etc so its all conjecture.

As for building vectors i would always keep to a set specification , for instance i would not use Bills method but send to a new vector where all my route to statements are , this is easier for me to maintain and keep a track of , also we heavily utilize variables to keep our vectors as short and maintainable as possible.

[marzahn]

As Always . . . &quot;It Depends.&quot;

In fact just replace step 7 with the statement i have provided you and this will work.Step 20 is no longer needed.

-AND-

Ok i think i have the solution to your issue , instead of the way you have it set up try
route to number xxxxx with cov y if digit =5 Instead of the way you are trying to do it , i think your way would need the route to step to be directly underneath the collect statement.
I reckon that will work

Will this work? Yes it should. However without seeing the trace and events from a test vector, I will not know why it does not.

Is one way preferable to the other? The answer is always going to be: "it depends."
If I were your consultant, I would want to know what your entire call center environment looks like. And I would want to know:

How do you test for . . .

Time of day vs.business hours,
Agent staffing, availability, or lack thereof
Building emergencies
Bad weather outages
Early shut-down or team meetings

I always treat "route-to" steps as a sub-route program and place them at the end of any vector for the reasons given. It also makes it easier to follow when your route-to step is used by more than one preceeding step. For example you may need to use several of the test steps above to "go-to" a single route-to step.

This configuration works consitently for me. Moreover, you get a consistent "look" with any vector I build.

Please, before going any further, set up a test VDN and vector set to isolate your work from normal business activity. Then try all of the solutions offered here while you trace. Once you get something working, you can move your good work into production and accept the kudos from your manager. I hope this helps.

[richa164]

In fact just replace step 7 with the statement i have provided you and this will work.Step 20 is no longer needed.