I see. But according to SMS spec any concat should be specified in the UDH
header (?). Why do we try to support it outside the spec and with a rather
"iffy" approach?
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alejandro Guerrieri" <[email protected]>
To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Kannel Devel" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix MO concatenation
Concatenation works, but only if it's done with the UDH parameters.
On SMPP the sar_ optional values could be used as well, but kannel
ignores that afaik.
Regards,
--
Alejandro Guerrieri
[email protected]
On 11/11/2009, at 15:24, Nikos Balkanas wrote:
Hi,
Any background info? Did MO concatenation work so far? If yes what is
wrong now? Any relevant ticket? Does this fix concat for the case that
udh doesn't specify it?
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Malysh" <[email protected]
>
To: "Kannel Devel" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 4:16 PM
Subject: [PATCH] Fix MO concatenation
Hi,
attached if patch that fixes issue in MO concatenation handling. Just
example:
- First MO with 2 parts (from:123, to:456, reference id in concat=0,
udh=A)
- Second MO also with 2 parts (from:123, to:456, reference id in
concat=0, udh=B)
Now when we receive part 1 from first MO and then part 2 from second MO
we will put them together.
We are not really able to differentiate First MO parts and second MO
parts but we at least able to minimize
possibility to wrong assemble parts when we check whether UDH (without
concatenation info) is the same.
Please check attached patch.
Looking for feedback...
Thanks,
Alexander Malysh
