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
In the other words we can not have a pass-thru configuration then?
sangprabv
sangpr...@gmail.com
On Jun 19, 2010, at 7:15 PM, Nikos Balkanas wrote:
Nope. The way it works is (SMPP_CLIENT = ESME):
ESME - SMPPBOX -Bearerbox-SMSC
The connection from ESME is SMPP. The connection to
I am thinking of a possibility. Does the group = smsbox-route also route
incoming message from a box? Or just incoming messages from the smsc-link?
== Rene
-Original Message-
From: users-boun...@kannel.org [mailto:users-boun...@kannel.org] On Behalf
Of Nikos Balkanas
Sent: zaterdag 19
Thanks Nikos.
:-)
On 6/18/2010 9:13 PM, Nikos Balkanas wrote:
Hi,
I am working on the documentation. Should be up sometime next Monday.
It will contain a chapter on configuration.
BR,
Nikos
- Original Message - From: Omar THIAM
To: nbalka...@gmail.com ; users@kannel.org ;
CMIIW, it only route incoming MO from smsc-link. While MT routing so far done
by explicitly define the smsc-id in the send-sms URL and or smsc_id field in
the SQLBox.
sangprabv
sangpr...@gmail.com
On Jun 19, 2010, at 9:14 PM, Rene Kluwen wrote:
I am thinking of a possibility. Does the
Nope. It is used only by MOs in the case that multiple smsboxes are
connected, where to route them.
BR,
Nikos
- Original Message -
From: Rene Kluwen rene.klu...@chimit.nl
To: 'Nikos Balkanas' nbalka...@gmail.com; 'sangprabv'
sangpr...@gmail.com
Cc: users@kannel.org
Sent: Saturday,
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
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
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
I agree with that.
I was looking at some alternatives today. And this seems the most
appropriate.
== Rene
From: Alejandro Guerrieri [mailto:alejandro.guerri...@gmail.com]
Sent: zaterdag 19 juni 2010 17:47
To: sangprabv
Cc: Rene Kluwen; users@kannel.org
Subject: Re: For the ones using
Hi All,
I am using two SMSCs one for sending and one for
receiving.
Can somebody please guide how can I force kannel not
to send message using the receiver SMSC even if the link to sender SMSC
goes down?
I tried using forced-sms-id but if the link goes down,
it starts sending the messages
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
Check userguide, there are some directives you can use. allowed-smsc-id,
prefered-smsc-id, denied-smsc-id in the smsc group.
sangprabv
sangpr...@gmail.com
On Jun 19, 2010, at 11:26 PM, Waqas Farooq wrote:
Hi All,
I am using two SMSCs one for sending and one for receiving.
Can
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:
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:
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)
Ive been thinking about schemes like this.
Even, the way you are suggesting, you can replace smsbox with smppbox and
http smsc with smpp smsc.
But in the end, things won't come down exactly to what sangprabv wants.
== Rene
From: Nikos Balkanas [mailto:nbalka...@gmail.com]
Sent: zaterdag 19
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
Okay, what you say now is a method that didn't occur to me before:
I could easily patch smppbox so that an incoming message is forwarded to
another connected client, and vice versa.
From an architectural point of view, regarding Kannel, this is the least
interesting one. Also, logging (via
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
