Hi Paul, > Yes, we've looked at some architectures for this. As pointed out, > it depends on the SMSC provider and on your position; if you're > just another ESME gateway supplier then you're usually subject to > a retail type of policy, if you're supplying core network technology > in terms of proxy solutions etc., then they're much more flexible. > The SMSC routing algorithm in the BB does have an element of load > sharing but as BBs don't know about each other, you need to get down > to the IP level to share between BBs. A more visionary approach would > be to replace the internal Box comms. with a message queue, > thus allowing > a many to many relationship between SMS boxes/clients and BBs. Great > for resilance but don't think it would work for WAP. Did you end up finding a suitable solution for your problem ? At the IP level ?
We have indeed started looking at IP level load balancing. Take for example SMPP, we are wondering if the SMS-C typically allow multiple binds to the same address range so as to allow multiple BB to BIND behind an IP load balancer. Also, Kannel currently doesn't react well to failing BINDs so that may mean changing the code if the SMS-C doesn't allow multiple binds so that the bearer box still starts and can receive traffic from the SMS-C through the load balancer. Does this make any sense ? On another hand, has anyone ever used commercial SMS-gateways ? What is the general feeling ? Regards, Philippe
