Nope. There are no more internal loops than in the smppbox case. That means
no internal loops.
We should consider that there are already more than enough ways to do
rerouting in kannel, before going out and start developing smsbox-reroute or
such. If you stop for a minute and consider what you want to do and the best
way to do it, you might find out that you already have what you need.
BTW isn't that (smsbox-reroute) handled by the MO 2 MT redirection?
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message -----
From: sangprabv
To: Nikos Balkanas
Cc: Rene Kluwen ; users@kannel.org
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 5:08 AM
Subject: Re: For the ones using (open) smppbox...
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
