J�rg Pommnitz wrote: > I have to qualify this message: > IPv4 works fine without the qos tag, but PLMN gives: > > 2001-11-15 15:41:14 [11] DEBUG: HTTP: Creating HTTPClient for `10.1.25.120'. > 2001-11-15 15:41:14 [13] INFO: PPG: Accept request </cgi-bin/wap-push.cgi> > from <10.1.25.120> > 2001-11-15 15:41:14 [13] DEBUG: PPG: Content-Type is multipart/related; > boundary="332daf4c:ea30a33dc8:-714c"; type="application/xml; charset=UTF-8" > 2001-11-15 15:41:14 [13] DEBUG: PPG: http_read_thread: pap multipart > accepted > 2001-11-15 15:41:14 [13] INFO: client address was <+491718997592>, accepted > 2001-11-15 15:41:14 [13] DEBUG: PAP COMPILER: doing semantic analysis for > address type a phone number > 2001-11-15 15:41:14 [13] DEBUG: PAP COMPILER: network or bearer does not > accept PLMN address > 2001-11-15 15:41:14 [13] WARNING: wrong type of address for requested bearer > 2001-11-15 15:41:14 [13] DEBUG: PPG: send_bad_message_response: telling pi > 2001-11-15 15:41:14 [13] DEBUG: HTTP: Resetting HTTPClient for > `10.1.25.120'. > 2001-11-15 15:41:14 [13] WARNING: PPG: pap control entity erroneous, the > request unacceptable > 2001-11-15 15:41:19 [10] DEBUG: HTTP: Destroying HTTPClient area 0x81e4b68. > 2001-11-15 15:41:19 [10] DEBUG: HTTP: Destroying HTTPClient for > `10.1.25.120'. > > it seems bearer defaults to WSP instead of something sensible > for the given address type. >
Actually, this case the request is rejected. But GSM+SMS would be much better default. I do this tomorrow, too. Aarno
