Thanks, Stipe.
Maybe the part in the documentation where it says that some WAP 2.0 features
are already implemented (see Features)should be corrected.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stipe Tolj" <[email protected]>
To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: WAP 2.0 questions
Nikos Balkanas schrieb:
I have a couple of questions regarding kannel's WAP 2.0 implementation:
What are the ports for WAP 2.0 traffic? Same as Wap 1.0 (UDP 9200 -
9204)? I imagine that WDP is XHTML and not wbXML in this case.
in WAP 2 you actually act as a HTTP proxy, along with some tuning for
WTCP, but
that's fairly theoretical and almost never used.
There is no "HTTP proxy" support in the normal Kannel to support "native"
HTTP
calls from devices. People used either Apache or squid for this "part" of
the
WAP 2 stacking.
As mentioned, the Kannel CG (carrier-grade) version includes a specially
patched
squid, that is glued to the WAP 1 and RADIUS acct proxy layer to have a
"unique"
stack for WAP 1 and 2, with full RADIUS (i.e. MSISDN) provisioning
support.
How are cookies handled in this case? Are they passed to the client
mobile, or remain on the gateway?
in WAP 1 they can be residing on the gateway, in WAP 2 the proxy will most
likely hand them over to the client. Gateway residing of cookies is a
architectural problem, since you get into conflicts if the DHCP'ed client
IPs
are shared, and hence you "serve" as gateway a returning client, of which
you
can't be sure that it is really the one you served before. Therefore
gateway
stored cookies is mostly not endorsed.
Stipe
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kφlner Landstrasse 419
40589 Dόsseldorf, 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------
