>>first of all: DO NOT cross-post, we consider this "abuse". Either a mail
>>belongs to users@ if it is of usage scope, or devel@ if it is of development
>>scope.
First , Sorry for cross mailing lists ( but I really I can categorize this
devel and also user ) lst issue :)
>>What you mean is a proxying the SMPP deliver_sm PDUs to "own" ESME's
>>deliver_sm PDUs for the client side?
>>In an architectural way like this:
>> SMSC <-SMPP-> bearerbox <-> smppbox <-SMPP-> ESMEs (exeternal SMPP
>>clients)
>>right?
No , this is not what I mean , see the below architecture :
SMSC <-- ALL SMPP CMDs --> BearerBox1 <----> SMSBox <----> ESMEs
SMSC <-- ---Deliver_SM -----> BearerBox2 <----> SMSBox <----> ESMEs
So I can handle Deliver_SM in a separate BB (BearerBox2 ) , to remove the
overhead of dlr processing from the BearerBox1
>>Stipe
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Kölner Landstrasse 419
>>40589 Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany
>>tolj.org system architecture Kannel Software Foundation (KSF)
>>http://www.tolj.org/ http://www.kannel.org/
>>mailto:st_{at}_tolj.org mailto:stolj_{at}_kannel.org
Best Regards,
Ahmed Shabana
Developer
Mob: +20 (100) 3325373
Email: [email protected] | web: www.cequens.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Stipe Tolj
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 2:03 PM
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: smpp loadbalancer
Am 06.09.2012 17:45, schrieb Ahmed Shabana:
> Dears ,
>
> First , Thank you Guilaume for your reply .
>
> I need a load balance which aware the SMPP commands specially
> deliver_sm
>
> Because almost all our connection forced to be transceiver , and I
> need to separate the delivery report processing in a separate BB not
> depend on main BBs
