**>From: "fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> **>To: "devel" <[email protected]> **>Subject: Re: messageid DLR parameter **>Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:32:43 +1100 **> **>> Davy Chan wrote: **>> **>> > I might represent the extreme case of Kannel porting. I haven't **>> > seen anyone on the net talking about Kannel on an ARM7 processor **>> > (although we kind of talked about the possibility of Kannel on **>> > the Dragonball [a la Palm] or StrongARM [a la iPaq] in Hong Kong **>> > back in 2000). But, I'm sure crazy people like me are out there. **>> **>> I hope there are more of those outside too ;) **>> **>> > Don't think that limited resources are ONLY due to old equipment. **>> > Cost and space is another issue. You'ld be surprised at some **>> > places Kannel code has been embedded into. Ever wonder how some **>> > of those long-haul trucking companies keep track of their trucks? **>> **>> good example. **>> **>> Stipe **> **>Indeed?? kannel is just so not embedded friendly, what with the separate **>processes as they are... **>if i were to embed something along these lines, i'd choose which i/f it be **>using smpp,whatever, **>and use that code, and build frm there, i don't see much anything else in **>kannel that i'd want.... **>and again we're talking about that damned lowest common denominator..... **>Please stick to where i bet most are using it,or want to use it, gateways **>to the telcos, and for large amount of **>traffic - spreading the load over multiple m/cs etc etc, ie the big **>picture!! isn't that why its "architected" the way it is?
Actually, Kannel is embedded friendly if you know how to embed it. A dual-core design using ARM7 cores at 90Mhz performs as well as an Intel Pentium III 650Mhz but is 1/3 the BOM cost and 1/8 the power consumption (and hence much lower on heat dissipation requirements). The separation of the bearerbox from the wapbox and smsbox makes it very easy to watchdog it and not affect all services at once. And, yes, stripping out all the code for extra SMSC support for everything except SMPP and HTTP does make the footprint smaller. You even have enough room to add an SMPP Server, SS7 over IP, and SIP. And, if you cut all the sms-service (except some relating to the PPG) related stuff, you get a very nice, compact system that can easily reside as a subcomponent of a blade plugged into the backplane of the MSC. "Hardware-based" SMSC/WAP/PPG/SS7/SIP all on a single blade. See ya... d.c.
