Alcatel to NEC using E1 - QSIG GF

[dandy]

Hi,

We manage to get the trunk up between Alcatel and NEC.

Current Situation:

1. NEC can call Alcatel
2. Alcatel cannot call NEC

T3 trace from Alcatel:
______________________________________________________________________________
| (058889:000002) 1104: Send_IO1 (link-nbr=1, sapi=0, tei=0) :
| long: 103 desti: 0 source: 15 cryst: 2 cpl: 3 us: 8 term: 0 type a5
| tei: 0 <<<< message sent : SETUP [05] Call ref : 00 3e
| SENDING COMPLETE
|______________________________________________________________________________
|
| IE:[04] BEARER_CAPABILITY (l=3) 80 90 a3
| IE:[18] CHANNEL (l=3) a9 83 83 -> T2 : B channel 3 exclusive
| IE:[1c] FACILITY (l=49)
| [91] Discriminator of supplementary service applications
| [aa] NFE (l=6):
| [80] Source Entity (l=1) End_PTNX
| [82] Destination Entity (l=1) End_PTNX
| [8b] Interpretation APDU (l=1): DISCARD (0)
| [a1] INVOKE (l=16):
| Invoke Ident. : 2ee0 (12000)
| OP: ECMA RO_CALLING_NAME (0)
| [80] Name presentation allowed (l=4) '8000'
| [a1] INVOKE (l=17):
| Invoke Ident. : 2f09 (12041)
| OP: ECMA RO_QSIG_PATH_RETAIN (41)
| [03] Bit string (l=5) 00 86 00 00 00
| IE:[6c] CALLING_NUMBER (l=6) -> 00 81 Num : 8000
| IE:[70] CALLED_NUMBER (l=5) -> 80 Num : 3599
| IE:[7d] HLC (l=2) 91 81
| [95] Locking shift. codeset : 5
| IE:[32] EI_PARTY_CATEGORY (l=1) -> EXTENSION (1)
|______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
| (058890:000004) Concatenated-Physical-Event :
| long: 22 desti: 0 source: 0 cryst: 2 cpl: 3 us: 0 term: 0 type a5
| tei: 0 >>>> message received : REL COMP [5a] Call ref : 80 3e
|______________________________________________________________________________
|
| IE:[08] CAUSE (l=2) 81 9c -> [9c] INVALID NUMBER FORMAT
|______________________________________________________________________________

Please advice.

Thank you.

[haroun]

IE:[08] CAUSE (l=2) 81 9c -> [9c] INVALID NUMBER FORMAT
and have u seen number of duplicated post lol
i guess 8000 is an alctel extension a
3955 is nec one what kind is did , extension ? at nec side of course
and what about 3955 in alactel translator , network number , 39 routing number , lenghth !?

[cavagnaro]

Another matter:
And the idea of posting this same question 5 times is because....??? Don't spam the forum please or will be taken as that and banned.
Thanks

[dandy]

Hi cavagnaro,

First of all sorry for the multiple message. I did sent a private message to Frank explain the issue. When I try to post the subject, I got a SQL error and I try to submit few times without realizing the topic already posted. I will try to capture the error message and send to you.

Sorry for the inconvenience caused.

Thank you.

[dandy]

Hi haroun,

8000 = alcatel extension
3599 = NEC extension

I set 3599 as routing number :
Routing number = 35
Network number = 10
Trunk group = 1
No of digits = 4

Thank you.

[patmul39]

It seems here that the NEC is the issue:

| tei: 0 >>>> message received : REL COMP [5a] Call ref : 80 3e
|______________________________________________________________________________
|
| IE:[08] CAUSE (l=2) 81 9c -> [9c] INVALID NUMBER FORMAT
|______________________________________________________________________________


The above is the message received by the OXE so it is the NEC not accepting the call

[haroun]

nec says that the format is not good , please post call's trace from a NEC extension to alcatel one (specially from this 3599)

[haroun]

invalid number format (address incomplete).
This cause indicates that the called party cannot be reached because the called party number is not in a valid format or is not complete.

[patmul39]

"....the called party number is not in a valid format or is not complete" or not being translated/understood by the remote end?

The message sent by the OXE to the NEC shows clearly that it is sending the correct number (3599)
IE:[70] CALLED_NUMBER (l=5) -> 80 Num : 3599

I would defintely have a closer look at the NEC management

[haroun]

yes tht's it why i ask for a reverse trace to see if 3599 is really exists as 3599"