Hi Nick,

heh, I thought already that kannel 1.4.0 smpp is too strict ;)
why kannel discard this message? that's pretty simple, ton/npi values are
'0' (unknown/unknown) and source_addr/destination_addr are both with '+' in
front but kannel allows nondigits addr _only_ if ton/npi values set
appropriate. that's why kannel discard this mo message with error_code
"invalid source addr".

what we can do: tyntec is already informed about this issue and maybe will
change such behaviour... alternatively I will commit patch (next week) that
will relax source/destination checks in kannel smpp. let's see who is
faster ;)


Nick Branson wrote:

> Alex,
> 
> As requested:
> 
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG: SMPP[tyntec]: Got PDU:
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG: SMPP PDU 0xa1226f8 dump:
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   type_name: deliver_sm
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   command_id: 5 = 0x00000005
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   command_status: 0 = 0x00000000
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   sequence_number: 161687 =
> 0x00027797
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   service_type: NULL
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   source_addr_ton: 0 = 0x00000000
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   source_addr_npi: 0 = 0x00000000
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   source_addr: "+440000000000"
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   dest_addr_ton: 0 = 0x00000000
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   dest_addr_npi: 0 = 0x00000000
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   destination_addr: "+440000000000"
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   esm_class: 0 = 0x00000000
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   protocol_id: 0 = 0x00000000
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   priority_flag: 0 = 0x00000000
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   schedule_delivery_time: NULL
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   validity_period: NULL
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   registered_delivery: 0 =
> 0x00000000
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   replace_if_present_flag: 0 =
> 0x00000000
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   data_coding: 0 = 0x00000000
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   sm_default_msg_id: 0 = 0x00000000
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   sm_length: 7 = 0x00000007
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   short_message: "Testinh"
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG: SMPP PDU dump ends.
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG: SMPP[tyntec]: Sending PDU:
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG: SMPP PDU 0xa122848 dump:
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   type_name: deliver_sm_resp
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   command_id: 2147483653 =
> 0x80000005
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   command_status: 10 = 0x0000000a
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   sequence_number: 161687 =
> 0x00027797
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG:   message_id: NULL
> 2004-12-23 14:27:47 [21212] [6] DEBUG: SMPP PDU dump ends.
> 
> 
> Alexander Malysh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> hi,
> 
> would you please post smpp pdu dump from bearerbox debug log for this
> failed mo msg?
> 
> Raymond wrote:
> 
>> Nick Branson <nick <at> sign-up.to> writes:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hey
>>> users,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Having a
>>> little problem with Kannel. I recently switched from using Kannel
>>> 1.2.0 to a copy taken by CVS in early October.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It would
>>> seem that when I receive an inbound MO message from my SMSC it's not
>>> being passed to the�sms box.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I see the
>>> message arrive in the bearerbox debugging. However, the smsbox
>>> debugging
>> remains
>>> idle. My get-url for the service is not being called either.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I am having the same problem... I could sent msg from SMPP emulator
>> but the service could not be called... I looked in to "smsc_smpp.c"
>> and couldnt really find out how they handle MO service kind of
>> messages... for I do know MO for "smsc_http.c" is working...
>> 
>> if anyone found a solution for it, kindly send me an email... thanks
>> ya
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Ray
> 
> --
> Thanks,
> Alex

-- 
Thanks,
Alex


Reply via email to