Ahmed, Why not just bind BearerBox1 as a SMPP transceiver and BearerBox2 as a SMPP receiver? This way the transceiver will be used for all PDUs but you'll also have a dedicated BB just for DLRs. Obviously, both would need to be bound to the same operator-end SMSC with the same account and you'd need a database or other shared DLR storage between the BBs.
In this configuration you could still conceivably receive DLRs on your BB1 connection, but if its busy with submit_sm then most of these are likely to arrive on your dedicated receiver bind, but in the end, how these are spread between the connections would be up to your upstream operator and is out of your control no matter how much you hack the code. Toby. On 12/09/2012, at 5:16 PM, Ahmed Shabana wrote: > > >>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 J > >>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 ß ALL SMPP CMDs à BearerBox1 ßà SMSBox ßàESMEs > SMSC ß ---Deliver_SM ---à BearerBox2 ßà SMSBox ßàESMEs > > 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
