That's an alternative, yes... -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Aarno Syvänen Sent: Friday, 28 October, 2011 10:18 To: [email protected] Devel Subject: Re: Using smppbox id
What about routing by smsc id and perhaps by shotcode, as bearerbox currently does ? Aarno On 27.10.2011, at 22:52, Rene Kluwen wrote: > An additional dlr field will work for DLR's. > But how do you think about routing MO's? > > == Rene > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Aarno Syvänen > Sent: Thursday, 27 October, 2011 15:51 > To: [email protected] Devel > Subject: Re: Using smppbox id > > I like more an additional dlr table field. Msg id is actually a generally > useful field here. > > Aarno > > On 27.10.2011, at 12:19, Alexander Malysh wrote: > >> or use metadata to store it... >> >> Alex >> >> Am 27.10.2011 um 10:36 schrieb Aarno Syvänen: >> >>> Hi Alex, >>> >>> yes, I agree that a new dlr field would be better. >>> >>> Aarno >>> >>> On 27.10.2011, at 09:51, Alexander Malysh wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Aarno, >>>> >>>> dict is not good because bearerbox can be restarted in the meantime and > if you have much traffic >>>> dict will fill the memory. Maybe additional field in DLR DB? >>>> >>>> Alex >>>> >>>> Am 27.10.2011 um 09:43 schrieb Aarno Syvänen: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I work on patch that uses dict mapping incoming smpp client box id to > msg id- >>>>> When DLR is retuned, original box id is restored using this dict. >>>>> >>>>> MOs could be routed by smsc id, as presently, but by smppbox. >>>>> >>>>> Aarno >>>>> >>>>> On 27.10.2011, at 09:31, Alexander Malysh wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I also don't like separate bearerbox connections but how should > multiple smppbox setup handled if ESME can connect >>>>>> to each of them? Static routing in bearerbox doesn't work here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 27.10.2011 um 09:06 schrieb Aarno Syvänen: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> patch as I posted it is indeed not needed. But do we need separate >>>>>>> bearerbox connection for every smppbox client ? IMHO, this should >>>>>>> be changed, too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Aarno >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 26.10.2011, at 01:06, Alexander Malysh wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> seems reasonable for me. Why we need the patch from Aarno then? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alex >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am 21.10.2011 um 22:41 schrieb Rene Kluwen: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, opensmppbox opens a separate box connection per connected > client. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've heard before that using system-id is indeed more useful. So if > you >>>>>>>>> want, go for that by using use-systemid-as-smsboxid or simply set > the >>>>>>>>> system-type equal to system-id in clients.txt. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: Alexander Malysh [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of >>>>>>>>> Alexander Malysh >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 20 October, 2011 10:05 >>>>>>>>> To: Rene Kluwen >>>>>>>>> Cc: 'Aarno Syvänen'; [email protected] >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Using smppbox id >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But the box-id is for the whole box connection or does smppbox open > extra >>>>>>>>> box connection to bearerbox for >>>>>>>>> each ESME? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alex >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Am 19.10.2011 um 23:22 schrieb Rene Kluwen: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Because the return messsges should be routed to the original > client that >>>>>>>>> sent the first message to begin with... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- >>>>>>>>>> Van: Alexander Malysh <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> Verzonden: woensdag 19 oktober 2011 21:28 >>>>>>>>>> Aan: Rene Kluwen <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> CC: 'Aarno Syvänen' <[email protected]>; [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> Onderwerp: Re: Using smppbox id >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> why box-id per client? I meant box-id per smppbox. Why do you want > box-id >>>>>>>>> per client? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Alex >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Am 19.10.2011 um 21:17 schrieb Rene Kluwen: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So you want a config option for boxc-id per client? >>>>>>>>>>> This is the same as configuring a system-type, isn't it? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I agree, it's a hack. But better than cluttering the config > files. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> == Rene >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On >>>>>>>>> Behalf >>>>>>>>>>> Of Alexander Malysh >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 19 October, 2011 19:41 >>>>>>>>>>> To: Aarno Syvänen >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: [email protected] Devel >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Using smppbox id >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> just looked through the source code and I can only agree with > Andreas: >>>>>>>>>>> system-type has nothing todo with box-id. >>>>>>>>>>> I don't know who uses it and why but it's totally wrong. I would > just >>>>>>>>> remake >>>>>>>>>>> this part and make it straight forward >>>>>>>>>>> from design and understanding perspective: kill existing box-id > hack and >>>>>>>>>>> implement clean config options for box-id >>>>>>>>>>> and use _only_ these. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> @Aarno: you changed the code for data_sm only, how about > submit_sm? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Alex >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Am 19.10.2011 um 15:26 schrieb Aarno Syvänen: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This relies on assumption that no two smppbox share a client. I > cannot >>>>>>>>>>> accept this. >>>>>>>>>>>> Besides, I can have two smppboxes connected to my application >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Aarno >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.10.2011, at 15:19, Rene Kluwen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said before: In clients.txt, you can put system-type to > the >>>>>>>>>>>>> opensmppbox-id and you are all set. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> == Rene >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On >>>>>>>>>>> Behalf >>>>>>>>>>>>> Of Aarno Syvänen >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 19 October, 2011 09:35 >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] Devel >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Using smppbox id >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In my case, there is an application between bearerbox and > smppbox. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus application must route to smppbox and not to its clients. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Aarno >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18.10.201 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [Het originele bericht is niet volledig opgenomen] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > > >
