On Mon, 2002-02-11 at 12:19, Ian Daly wrote: > need to set denied-smsc-id aswell to ensure that the access you've set works > as you expect?
That's the whole point - I don't want access control - I want load balancing. that's why prefered-smsc-id is better, like you suggested. > > That's was what I'm trying to get - a clear idea of the load balancing > > algortihm. from my test it looks like randomal, which is (IMHO) not a > > good idea for a small number of SMSCs (is there a kannel setup in use > > somewhere with a large number of SMSCs ?). > > For the routing, I think if you don't set preferred-smsc-id, then it is > random. If you do, then as long as that smsc is available it should go there > (not taking into account any retry mechanism). What about if I set prefered-smsc-id to all the SMSCs ? like this smsc-id = 100 prefered-smsc-id = 100;200;300 smsc-id = 200 prefered-smsc-id = 100;200;300 smsc-id = 300 prefered-smsc-id = 100;200;300 will it then be random ? or round robin ? or just catch the first one (100) everytime ? -- Oded Arbel m-Wise inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You've got more rolls than a bakery and more chins than a Chinese phone book!
