HI, sorry for late response... unfortunately this code is not sharable yet.
Thanks, Alexander Malysh P.S. for commercials you can contact me privately 2011/2/24 Sanjay Bhandari <san...@ziffusion.com> > Dude! :) > > Why didn't you say that in the first place?! And what would it take for you > to share the code with the rest of us? I can order a keg or something > delivered to your house. > > Sanjay > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Alexander Malysh <amal...@kannel.org>wrote: > >> nothing wrong in this idea, I already done this in my tree :) >> >> Thanks, >> Alexander Malysh >> >> Am 24.02.2011 um 20:53 schrieb Sanjay Bhandari: >> >> 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 <amal...@kannel.org>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 >>> >>>>>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >> >
