> > I dont think thats really useful. After all it would cost a lot of >> CPU power. If someone would need that for some reason he still can >> run two instances of Kannel and use the HTTPS interface among them to >> communicate. > >The load of the CPU would be signifantly higher, that's true. > >But what about the "interal" connections from bearerbox to >wapbox/smsbox? They are not HTTP based, AFAIK?! > >Stipe
Thats what I mean. Most users run bearerbox and smsbox on the same machine. If they are separate the its usually on two boxes sitting next to each other and performance is a key issue in those situations (as otherwhise you wouldnt use two boxes). So adding SSL to a performance sensitive environment isnt helping. But in those cases its relatively easy to make the network secure by using a separate network between bearerbox and smsboxes. The only case where I think it would be helpful is when the bearerbox is far remote from the SMSbox and reached over the internet. in that case however you might run bearerbox & smsbox in the remote location and run a local bearerbox & smsbox and interface with HTTP between the two locations and there you can use HTTPS with your patch already. -- Andreas Fink Fink-Consulting ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tel: +41-61-6932730 Fax: +41-61-6932729 Mobile: +41-79-2457333 Address: A. Fink, Schwarzwaldallee 16, 4058 Basel, Switzerland E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.finkconsulting.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Something urgent? Try http://www.smsrelay.com/ Nickname afink
