Hi, using a second generic http smsc solve the problem but that is
exactly what I want to avoid, before having to create a second smsc,
changing the user to avoid duplicity could be easier, but before
trying to convince the client to use a different username I would like
to found a simpler alternative.

thanks in advance.

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Rene Kluwen <[email protected]> wrote:
> A possible solution that I am thinking of at first glance is to use two
> separate generic http smsc's for each opensmppbox.
> Those smsc's share the same group=smsc settings, except for 1 parameter that
> you can distinguish with.
>
> I will give this more thoughts. It's an interesting issue.
>
> == Rene
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of Nicolas de Bari Embriz Garcia Rojas
> Sent: Wednesday, 16 May, 2012 01:03
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: our-system-id or opensmppbox-id as an Escape Code
>
> Hi all, any idea of how to identify an opensmpp box instance that
> routes traffic to a generic http smsc so that on the send-url
> parameters I could distinguish from which opensmppbox the request came
> from, maybe using an escape code % ?
>
> Currently I have two opensmppbox instances listening on different
> ports, the two of them connect to the same bearerbox server and route
> the messages to a single generic http smsc, so far I have been using
> for distinguish traffic sources, the escape code %n (the sendsms-user
> or sms-service name) but the  problem that I am facing now, Is that
> would like to distinguish trafic in a case where an user exists on
> both opensmppboxes (smpplogins).
>
> Any idea of how to deal with that ?
>
> opensmppbox1:2345. >---
>                                      \
>                                       \  ----> bearerbox http smsc
>                                       /
> opensmppbox2:2345.  >---/
>
> the  smpp logins on both opensmppbox have a common username entry
> 'funyclient secret VMA x.x.x.x'
>
> Any ideas would be appreciated.
>
>
>

Reply via email to