Re: Can Kannel act as an SMSC?

Less moving parts. And more efficient, right? There wouldn't be that loop
through bearerbox.

Based on you knowledge of the code, would it be a bad call to teach
bearerbox to act like a SMSC over the SMPP protocol? What are the caveats?

Sanjay

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Alexander Malysh <[email protected]>wrote:

> why do you want todo this if it's already implemented in opensmppbox?
>
> Thanks,
> Alexander Malysh
>
> Am 24.02.2011 um 17:06 schrieb Sanjay Bhandari:
>
> > Oh great! Thanks for the info. That seems like will work for us.
> >
> > Just another question, while I have your attention. It's bearerbox that
> > speaks the SMPP protocol, right? What is your opinion on modifying the
> > code there to enable it to talk to ESMEEs (in addition to SMSCs, like it
> > does now)? I am just trying to pick your brains (someone who has looked
> > at the code extensively), to see if I am under-thinking this. Do you
> > think there are any major blockers?
> >
> > Sanjay
> >
> > On 2/24/2011 10:50 AM, Alexander Malysh wrote:
> >> yes, please read userguide for details...
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Alexander Malysh
> >>
> >> Am 24.02.2011 um 16:31 schrieb Sanjay Bhandari:
> >>
> >>> Does that allow me to do these two simultaneously?
> >>>
> >>> SMSC <==> bearerbox <==> smsbox <==> applications
> >>> ESMEE <==> bearerbox <==> smsbox <==> applications
> >>>
> >>> Or is it that no traffic will be able to go out to the SMSC at all?
> Like,
> >>>
> >>> ESMEE <==> smppbox <==> bearerbox <==> loop SMSC <==> bearerbox
> >>> <==> smsbox <==> applications
> >>>
> >>> Is all traffic outboud to SMSC looped back?
> >>>
> >>> Sanjay
> >>>
> >>> On 2/24/2011 9:38 AM, Alexander Malysh wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> bearerbox has loop SMSC module. This allow you to loop traffic via
> bearerbox to smsbox...
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Alexander Malysh
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 24.02.2011 um 14:22 schrieb Sanjay Bhandari:
> >>>>
> >>>>> A few others suggested this as well, so I looked into it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Correct me if I am wrong, but opensmppbox and smppbox direct traffic
> >>>>> from ESMEEs towards bearerbox, and eventually the SMSCs. Our use case
> is
> >>>>> such that we want to enable SMS flow between ESMEEs and smsbox (and
> >>>>> eventually the applications talking to smsbox).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here is what we are after. Kannel does the following now:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> SMSC <==> bearerbox <==> smsbox <==> applications
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We need to enable the following:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ESMEE <==> bearerbox <==> smsbox <==> applications
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As you can see, this requires bearerbox to be the SMSC on the SMPP
> >>>>> protocol bind. Hence my question. But, of course, any configuration
> is
> >>>>> fine as long as the SMS flow between ESMEEs and applications is
> enabled.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ESMEE <==> whatever <==> smsbox <==> applications
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you have a suggestion for that?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sanjay
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 2/24/2011 5:55 AM, Stipe Tolj wrote:
> >>>>>> Am 23.02.2011 20:12, schrieb Sanjay Bhandari:
> >>>>>>> We have a bind where the peer wants to act as the ESMEE. I can't
> find a way to
> >>>>>>> configure Kannel as an SMSC. Am I missing it somehow?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> More importantly, if we decided to modify the code to try and
> support the SMSC
> >>>>>>> role, are there any hidden gotchas that we should be aware of? I
> guess, I am
> >>>>>>> wondering why this capability is not implemented in Kannel already.
> Are there
> >>>>>>> any blocking reasons?
> >>>>>> Kannel has 2 options to act as SMPP server:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> a) via the open source Kannel opensmppbox, which is located in the
> SVN trunk
> >>>>>> repository.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> b) via the commercial add-on Kannel SMPP v3.4 server (smppbox),
> which has a much
> >>>>>> wider complexity and feature scope, including a plugin API layer for
> additional
> >>>>>> logics and various accounting support methods.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In case you're interested in b), please let me know.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Stipe
> >>>>>>
> >>
>
>