IZZYAS1@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Andy Jacobson) (03/18/91)
In V11, #171, scott@huntsai.boeing.com (Scott Hinckley) writes: > This may be a completely mute pont anyway. At least in Atlanta (in > 1988) you could not re-call-forward a call-forwarded call. The > call-forwarded call to a call-forwarded number would result in a > normal ring, rather than a re-forward. This may be to stop such plans. > Moderator's Note: We used to have some prefixes like that here. A > call forwarded to a number would ring on that number regardless of > where the call-forwardee was forwarded to. But now the only time that > happens is if there is a loop: A forwards to B and B forwards to A. > The incoming call enters the loop at either end and stops after the > first hop. Otherwise, chain forwarding works okay here, but the first > time it hits a loop, or number already in the chain, that is it. PAT] The evolving finer points of call fowarding ... I have had both experiences, but it seems the circumstances were different. With CF on 1AESS, I have found that: Intra-switch: CF from A to B will end at B regardless of whether B is forwarded as well. Inter-switch: CF from A will go to wherever B is fowarded to, etc. I have not tried loops though. So I wonder if I am correct ... is this universal, or dependent on the generic the switch is running? How do other switches deal with this? And finally, does anyone know exactly if one switch will pass information to the next on whether the call is CF'ed or normal, or what was the CF'ed number, etc? (We know that with CLID it is the originating number that is passed along, right?). Does the implementation of SS7 allow the receiving switch to get more information, or treat the call differently? Andy Jacobson<izzyas1@oac.ucla.edu> or <izzyas1@UCLAMVS.bitnet>