Steve Murphy <[email protected]> writes: > Which of the two would you see being useful to you?
"Leg based", as far as I can see, because that looks like the only way to bill transfers differently depending on which end did the transfer. Possibly "Simple" on the Asterisk systems where we forbid transfers. > Is there Yet Another CDR system you would like to see instead? > How would/should it work? "Leg based" looks good. > Will both fulfil the requirements of CALEA? We're not yet operating in a jurisdiction where CALEA applies. It looks good enough for the jurisdictions we operate in, possibly apart from the transfer issues further down, but I am certainly not a lawyer. > It's been proposed that we implement just the Simple > CDR now, and it be introduced in some 1.6.x (or higher) > release. In that release, the existing CDR system would be > deprecated, and in some "futurer" release the "old" (now current) > CDR system would be dropped entirely. What do you > think? Are we high on drugs, or what? I need this functionality for transfers, and I don't think "Simple" provides it: A calls B: A pays for the whole duration for A => B B transfers to C: B pays for B => C, A is still paying A => B If it was A who transferred the call instead: A calls B: A pays for the whole duration for A => B A transfers to C: A pays for A => C, and A is still paying A => B B and C get to talk for free, while A pays twice. This should apply whether transfers are attended (soft), unattended (hard) or caused by SIP redirections before answering. Ideally it should also be possible to simulate SIP-like redirections in the dialplan with the same CDR behaviour. /Benny _______________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
