Milan P. Stanic wrote: > On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 10:02, Nikos Balkanas wrote: >> I must be the one thanking you for the discussion. You see I am a wap >> guy, and don't know of many of the issues that sms people face. >> >> The only concern is at startup. After it has bbox has started >> succesfully, and therefore sms_router, started as well, it doesn't >> matter. You can take all the smscs you want offline to service them. >> sms_router will work with the rest of them. >> >> The only issue is for startup. I cannot test the scenario you describe, >> because i don't have real smsc connections. However, if both connections >> are active the minute kannel starts (1st case0, there should be no >> problem. In the second case, the unavailable smsc should be commented out >> the configuration. >> >> I guess the only question is: Under what circumstances bbox will start, >> if the 2nd smsc is not responding? > > Bearerbox should always start. Even if there is no one smsc active. > Smsc can become active later for miscellaneous reasons. > I agree 100% with Milan here. SMSC's are not in our control - there could be many points of failure between kannel and SMSC. Firewalls, VPN's etc may be unhappy and we lose connectivity .. we need kannel to be stable (in operation and restart, etc) and manage the reconnect and message distribution (SMPP is pretty good here).
As Alvaro was suggesting earlier in the thread some sort of dynamic redistribution of queued message (maybe like keepalived or sim.) could be ideal .. but obviously some work .. Nikos I appreciate you have been busy doing some development. I can help test some of the SMSC 'stuff' (from SMPP) perspective - it's obviously in my interest here ;). As of now I haven't used a-lot of the routing features so this is a bit new to me (I will try and get back into it and hopefully make some suggestions). Cheers, Alan -- Alan McNatty, Wellington, New Zealand Catalyst IT Limited <http://www.catalyst.net.nz/> DDI: +64 4 8032201
