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 >
