Ive been thinking about schemes like this. Even, the way you are suggesting, you can replace smsbox with smppbox and http smsc with smpp smsc. But in the end, things won't come down exactly to what sangprabv wants.
== Rene From: Nikos Balkanas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: zaterdag 19 juni 2010 20:25 To: sangprabv; Rene Kluwen Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: For the ones using (open) smppbox... There is another way to do this using the sendsms interface. smsbox1->bearerbox1->HTTP smsc->smsbox2->bearerbox2 BR, Nikos ----- Original Message ----- From: sangprabv To: Rene Kluwen Cc: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 8:36 PM Subject: Re: For the ones using (open) smppbox... This will be very exciting achievements for Kannel community. It will be an enterprise achievements. +1 for this project Rene. sangprabv [email protected] On Jun 20, 2010, at 12:22 AM, Rene Kluwen wrote: Yes, that is the idea. From: sangprabv [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: zaterdag 19 juni 2010 19:12 To: Alejandro Guerrieri Cc: Rene Kluwen; [email protected] Subject: Re: For the ones using (open) smppbox... So the configuration would be like this: ESME_A<->SMPPBOX_A<->BEARERBOX<->SMPPBOX_B<->ESME_B is it? sangprabv [email protected] On Jun 19, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Alejandro Guerrieri wrote: What about implementing "reroute-smsbox-id" on bearerbox? That would provide a consistent interface, similar to what "reroute-smsc-id" does already. Regards, Alex On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 5:26 PM, sangprabv <[email protected]> wrote: My goal is pass all traffics from ESME A to ESME B and vice versa (it's a about reroute I guess). So there should be and SMPPBOX rather than BEARERBOX in between, CMIIW :) sangprabv [email protected] On Jun 19, 2010, at 10:16 PM, Rene Kluwen wrote: > Pass-thru seems to work the other way around. For this to work, your clients > need to run smppbox. > > The setup will be as follows: > > / SMPPBOX_CLIENT_1 > YOUR_BEARERBOX < > \ SMPPBOX_CLIENT_2 > > > With the bearerbox reroute-smsc-id messages can be passed in between the > client. > > Probably this setup is not what you wanted. But it is a possibility. > > == Rene > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sangprabv [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: zaterdag 19 juni 2010 13:55 > To: Rene Kluwen > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: For the ones using (open) smppbox... > > What about a pass-thru(forward) configuration between connections? Is it > possible, let's say we want to pass traffics SMPP_CLIENT_A > <->SMPPBOX<->SMPP_CLIENT_B. > > > > sangprabv > [email protected] > > > On Jun 19, 2010, at 3:31 AM, Rene Kluwen wrote: > >> Today, I committted a patch to smppbox svn trunk that allows for long >> (catenated) messages to be delivered via the same smsc, in case of load >> balancing. >> >> This version obsoletes that patch that is available for download on the >> chimit server. >> >> For the latest (stand-alone) version, use svn co >> https://svn.kannel.org/smppbox/trunk >> >> == Rene Kluwen >> >> >> > > >
