This scheme is known as relaying between Kannel and it is handled by kannel_*_sms() in the smsc_http.c where by default or we can redefine it by ourself. Using this scheme there will be too many inside hops. And I'm not sure this is the correct solution. I prefer ESME_A <-> SMPPBOX <->ESME_B (The best thing) or ESME_A<->SMPPBOX_A<->BEARERBOX<->SMPPBOX_B<->ESME_B where reroute will be directly handled by smppbox or bearerbox configuration. Well this is a subjective opinion from me.
sangprabv sangpr...@gmail.com On Jun 20, 2010, at 1:24 AM, Nikos Balkanas wrote: > There is another way to do this using the sendsms interface. > > smsbox1->bearerbox1->HTTP smsc->smsbox2->bearerbox2 > > BR, > Nikos > ----- Original Message ----- > From: sangprabv > To: Rene Kluwen > Cc: users@kannel.org > Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 8:36 PM > Subject: Re: For the ones using (open) smppbox... > > This will be very exciting achievements for Kannel community. It will be an > enterprise achievements. +1 for this project Rene. > > > sangprabv > sangpr...@gmail.com > > > On Jun 20, 2010, at 12:22 AM, Rene Kluwen wrote: > >> Yes, that is the idea. >> From: sangprabv [mailto:sangpr...@gmail.com] >> Sent: zaterdag 19 juni 2010 19:12 >> To: Alejandro Guerrieri >> Cc: Rene Kluwen; users@kannel.org >> Subject: Re: For the ones using (open) smppbox... >> So the configuration would be like this: >> ESME_A<->SMPPBOX_A<->BEARERBOX<->SMPPBOX_B<->ESME_B is it? >> sangprabv >> sangpr...@gmail.com >> >> >> On Jun 19, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Alejandro Guerrieri wrote: >> >> >> What about implementing "reroute-smsbox-id" on bearerbox? That would provide >> a consistent interface, similar to what "reroute-smsc-id" does already. >> Regards, >> Alex >> >> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 5:26 PM, sangprabv <sangpr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> My goal is pass all traffics from ESME A to ESME B and vice versa (it's a >> about reroute I guess). So there should be and SMPPBOX rather than BEARERBOX >> in between, CMIIW :) >> >> >> >> sangprabv >> sangpr...@gmail.com >> >> >> On Jun 19, 2010, at 10:16 PM, Rene Kluwen wrote: >> >> > Pass-thru seems to work the other way around. For this to work, your >> > clients >> > need to run smppbox. >> > >> > The setup will be as follows: >> > >> > / SMPPBOX_CLIENT_1 >> > YOUR_BEARERBOX < >> > \ SMPPBOX_CLIENT_2 >> > >> > >> > With the bearerbox reroute-smsc-id messages can be passed in between the >> > client. >> > >> > Probably this setup is not what you wanted. But it is a possibility. >> > >> > == Rene >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: sangprabv [mailto:sangpr...@gmail.com] >> > Sent: zaterdag 19 juni 2010 13:55 >> > To: Rene Kluwen >> > Cc: users@kannel.org >> > Subject: Re: For the ones using (open) smppbox... >> > >> > What about a pass-thru(forward) configuration between connections? Is it >> > possible, let's say we want to pass traffics SMPP_CLIENT_A >> > <->SMPPBOX<->SMPP_CLIENT_B. >> > >> > >> > >> > sangprabv >> > sangpr...@gmail.com >> > >> > >> > On Jun 19, 2010, at 3:31 AM, Rene Kluwen wrote: >> > >> >> Today, I committted a patch to smppbox svn trunk that allows for long >> >> (catenated) messages to be delivered via the same smsc, in case of load >> >> balancing. >> >> >> >> This version obsoletes that patch that is available for download on the >> >> chimit server. >> >> >> >> For the latest (stand-alone) version, use svn co >> >> https://svn.kannel.org/smppbox/trunk >> >> >> >> == Rene Kluwen >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >
