No, you are right. I saw your solution only after I made the smsbox-route-between patch. I think your solution is cleaner. It depends of the routing options that are already available. I attached your (Stipe's) patch another time, as I see that it is still not committed to svn trunk.
So the 2 questions here: 1. What do the other developers thing about this patch, and: 2. Can this patch (either one) submitted to Kannel svn, so people can benefit from smsbox (open smppbox) to smsbox routing? Previously, there hasn't been a lot of requests for it, other than be able to use sms-service from an smsbox request. Currently, I have been getting a lot of requests for this functionality because open smppbox depends on it. == Rene -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stipe Tolj Sent: Wednesday, 28 July, 2010 17:44 Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PATCH] SMS Box routing > As per popular request, I made a patch for bearerbox that enable the > following configuration: > > # multi-group: > group = smsbox-route-between > smsbox-id1 = localbox1 > smsbox-id2 = remotebox1 > # shortcode is optional > shortcode = +1234567;+7654321 > > > This is the opposite of "reroute" for smsc's. It routes messages from > smsbox/sqlbox/open smppbox to another box that is connected. > > This allows for: > > 1. client-to-client routing, concerning open smppbox. > 2. Call sms services from one of the boxes. Right now you can only call them > via an smsc. > 3. Many more interesting things thanks a lot Rene for the patch. I'm at the moment -0 for this, due to the fact that it logically duplicates the behavior that we already have via the 'smsc = loopback' type. In your approach you do the re-routing here in the bearebox abstractive layer, where the loopback smsc module does it in the smsc module layer. The benefits here are we get the MT and MO entry logged to access-log while running, and there are no further config groups needed, as you can define the same routing you intend between smsbox instances bound to the same bearerbox by using the loopback smsc, and the smsbox-route group already. Do I miss some advantages here from this approach? Stipe -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kölner Landstrasse 419 40589 Düsseldorf, 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------
smsc_loopback.diff
Description: Binary data
