Re: query related to binfo
Am 26.05.20, 17:44, schrieb ritesh rao:
I just wish to know if we set the binfo will that affect the smpp at
smsc side , in other words is binfo is part of smpp protocol ? or
binfo is used for kannel level only?
the 'binfo' field is an abstracted billing identifier/info field, which
is handled differently on each of the the lower SMSC protocol layers.
I.e. for SMPP what you get his this:
/* Set the service type of the outgoing message. We'll use the config
* directive as default and 'binfo' as specific parameter. */
if (octstr_len(msg->sms.binfo)) {
/* SMPP v5.0 has an own TLV for billing information */
if (smpp->version == 0x50) {
pdu->u.submit_sm.billing_identification =
octstr_duplicate(msg->sms.binfo);
} else {
pdu->u.submit_sm.service_type =
octstr_duplicate(msg->sms.binfo);
}
} else {
pdu->u.submit_sm.service_type = octstr_duplicate(smpp->service_type);
}
so in a typical SMPP v3.3 or v3.4 session the value in 'binfo' is passed
as submit_sm.service_type value.
--
Best Regards,
Stipe Tolj
---
Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany
Kannel Foundation tolj.org system architecture
http://www.kannel.org/http://www.tolj.org/
st...@kannel.org s...@tolj.org
---
query related to binfo
Hi I just wish to know if we set the binfo will that affect the smpp at smsc side , in other words is binfo is part of smpp protocol ? or binfo is used for kannel level only? Regards Manoj Raul
Binfo on long messages
Hi Kannel users. When sending long messages with binfo attached, the binfo value is attached to each message fragment. I wonder if binfo should not be handled in the same way as dlr (which is only set on the first message fragment). /Jacob
Re: binfo and NACK Status
transaction id - should this number be of specific format or any unique number. If it can be any unique number, kannel by itself gives a message id - %I. --Jyothi On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 9:31 PM, Oren Ein-gal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello list, Does any one have an answer? Thanks, Oren -הודעה מקורית- מאת: Oren Ein-gal נשלח: ד 30/04/2008 16:15 אל: users@kannel.org נושא: binfo and NACK Status Hello list, I have a Kannel version 1.4.1 with EMI2 configuration working perfectly. The operator wants me to send a transaction ID (number) together with the message (Extra Service section - XSER) I have read the manual and it seems I can use the binfo parameter when sending the message using http interface. Has anyone tried it before? Do I need to change the Kannel configuration? In addition in case there is a problem with the transaction ID the operator will send me a NACK response. What will be the Kannel response via http and behavior? Thanks in advance, Oren Ein-Gal -- Jyothi Rao
RE: binfo and NACK Status
Hello list, Does any one have an answer? Thanks, Oren -הודעה מקורית- מאת: Oren Ein-gal נשלח: ד 30/04/2008 16:15 אל: users@kannel.org נושא: binfo and NACK Status Hello list, I have a Kannel version 1.4.1 with EMI2 configuration working perfectly. The operator wants me to send a transaction ID (number) together with the message (Extra Service section - XSER) I have read the manual and it seems I can use the “binfo” parameter when sending the message using http interface. Has anyone tried it before? Do I need to change the Kannel configuration? In addition in case there is a problem with the transaction ID the operator will send me a NACK response. What will be the Kannel response via http and behavior? Thanks in advance, Oren Ein-Gal
binfo and NACK Status
Hello list, I have a Kannel version 1.4.1 with EMI2 configuration working perfectly. The operator wants me to send a transaction ID (number) together with the message (Extra Service section - XSER) I have read the manual and it seems I can use the binfo parameter when sending the message using http interface. Has anyone tried it before? Do I need to change the Kannel configuration? In addition in case there is a problem with the transaction ID the operator will send me a NACK response. What will be the Kannel response via http and behavior? Thanks in advance, Oren Ein-Gal
use of binfo changes service_type value!!!
Hi!First a question...I got a carrier, where messages are billed by MO, and I need to bill some by MTThey told me to use the SMPP billing parameter, which I guess is binfo, right?They sent me an e-mail with this: Meaning: Value: Parameter tag 0x060B Length 0x0007 Billing format tag 0x80is it ok, is it the binfo parameter?Then, they asked me first to try send a message putting 001100010001 as value for this parameter, but when I do so, the system_type gets changed to this value, thus giving an error :( This is what I'm doing to send it:http://xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:XXX/cgi-bin/sendsms?user=myUserpass=myPasssmsc=mySMSCfrom=1010to=1234567890text=testbinfo=001100010001 And this shows up on the logs:2006-11-02 13:37:50 [22983] [12] DEBUG: SMPP[mySMSC]: Got PDU:2006-11-02 13:37:50 [22983] [12] DEBUG: SMPP PDU 0x81d7450 dump:2006-11-02 13:37:50 [22983] [12] DEBUG: type_name: enquire_link_resp 2006-11-02 13:37:50 [22983] [12] DEBUG: command_id: 2147483669 = 0x80152006-11-02 13:37:50 [22983] [12] DEBUG: command_status: 0 = 0x2006-11-02 13:37:50 [22983] [12] DEBUG: sequence_number: 626 = 0x0272 2006-11-02 13:37:50 [22983] [12] DEBUG: SMPP PDU dump ends.2006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: SMPP[mySMSC]: Manually forced source addr ton = 1, source add npi = 12006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: SMPP[mySMSC]: Manually forced dest addr ton = 1, dest add npi = 1 2006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: SMPP[mySMSC]: Sending PDU:2006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: SMPP PDU 0x81d7450 dump:2006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: type_name: submit_sm2006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: command_id: 4 = 0x0004 2006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: command_status: 0 = 0x2006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: sequence_number: 627 = 0x02732006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: service_type: 001100010001 2006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: source_addr_ton: 1 = 0x00012006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: source_addr_npi: 1 = 0x00012006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: source_addr: 1010 2006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: dest_addr_ton: 1 = 0x00012006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: dest_addr_npi: 1 = 0x00012006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: destination_addr: 1234567890 2006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: esm_class: 3 = 0x00032006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: protocol_id: 0 = 0x2006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: priority_flag: 0 = 0x 2006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: schedule_delivery_time: NULL2006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: validity_period: NULL2006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: registered_delivery: 0 = 0x 2006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: replace_if_present_flag: 0 = 0x2006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: data_coding: 0 = 0x2006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: sm_default_msg_id: 0 = 0x 2006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: sm_length: 17 = 0x00112006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: short_message: test2006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] DEBUG: SMPP PDU dump ends.2006-11-02 13:38:03 [22983] [12] WARNING: SMPP: PDU element service_type too long (length is 12, should be 5) Why is this happening?? :(I'm using Kannel 1.4.0I got a 1.4.1 running also, but can not change this connection right now to test with 1.4.1Thanks in advance,Juan
Re: use of binfo changes service_type value!!!
On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 18:00 -0200, Juan Nin wrote: I got a carrier, where messages are billed by MO, and I need to bill some by MT They told me to use the SMPP billing parameter, which I guess is binfo, right? Yes. Meaning: Value: Parameter tag 0x060B Length 0x0007 Billing format tag 0x80 is it ok, is it the binfo parameter? Yes. Then, they asked me first to try send a message putting 001100010001 as value for this parameter, but when I do so, the system_type gets changed to this value, thus giving an error :( Look carefully, it's the service_type that's getting changed and this is expected behavior. -HTH -- .O. ..O Enver ALTIN | http://enveraltin.com/ OOO Software developer @ Parkyeri | http://www.parkyeri.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RE: binfo
Hmmm... I found it... It is the %B parameter. Rene Kluwen Chimit -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rene Kluwen Sent: donderdag 9 maart 2006 21:24 To: users@kannel.org Subject: binfo Is there a field in the dlr-url string that is set to the binfo value of the (dlr) message? I have an smsc driver that uses this field (soon to come). Rene Kluwen Chimit
binfo
Is there a field in the dlr-url string that is set to the binfo value of the (dlr) message? I have an smsc driver that uses this field (soon to come). Rene Kluwen Chimit
Re: esm_class again :) ( binfo)
Enver ALTIN wrote: It looks like Fred passes additional pairs of key:values without the need of patching Kannel... that would be great! :) No, he was adding some comments about another solution Stipe proposed, so that was a totally different subject. I just realized that binfo is a variable that can be passed to sendsms... But according to what Fred says it looks like he uses it to pass aditional parameters to the smpp module... is this correct? can binfo be used to accomplish the modification of esm_class? if so, how should it be used? Here's another thread that mentions something: http://www.mail-archive.com/devel@kannel.org/msg04365.html thanks again, Juan
Re: esm_class again :) ( binfo)
Hey, On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 11:26:28AM -0200, Juan Nin wrote: Enver ALTIN wrote: It looks like Fred passes additional pairs of key:values without the need of patching Kannel... that would be great! :) No, he was adding some comments about another solution Stipe proposed, so that was a totally different subject. I just realized that binfo is a variable that can be passed to sendsms... But according to what Fred says it looks like he uses it to pass aditional parameters to the smpp module... is this correct? can binfo be used to accomplish the modification of esm_class? if so, how should it be used? Let me sum it up, My patch adds another CGI parameter to sendsms called submission_mode, and SMPP will directly set esm_class to that value. Fred's solution was to prevent adding SMSC-specific sendsms parameters by passing a list of name=value pairs via binfo and use that. Both solutions are neither in CVS nor any Kannel release, if you want to set esm_class to something different you'll have to rebuild Kannel by yourself either by using the patch I posted or implementing a different solution on your own. -HTH -- Enver
Re: esm_class again :) ( binfo)
Enver ALTIN wrote: Let me sum it up, My patch adds another CGI parameter to sendsms called submission_mode, and SMPP will directly set esm_class to that value. Fred's solution was to prevent adding SMSC-specific sendsms parameters by passing a list of name=value pairs via binfo and use that. Both solutions are neither in CVS nor any Kannel release, if you want to set esm_class to something different you'll have to rebuild Kannel by yourself either by using the patch I posted or implementing a different solution on your own. yes, Fred wrote to me and explained about the binfo thing... I'll probably use your patch then ;) Thanks for everything, Juan
esm_class again :) ( binfo)
Hi! I need to use esm_class 0 with a Telco. I could change Kannel's code to use it as default mode (but would mean running 2 different Kannel instances) or maybe use Enver Altin's smpp-esmclass-submissionmode patch. On a thread on the devel list about Enver's patch, I've seen this post: http://www.opensubscriber.com/message/devel@kannel.org/2280385.html There, Fred says: I have been making use of binfo with further embeded key:values in the string for this kind of problem of passing smsc specific key/values to the smpp driver. it may not be the right thing to do, but at least I didn't need to change everywhere for another parameter since its already there and not much using of it at the moment Does anyone know what's this thing about binfo and how to implement it? Thanks in advance! Juan
Re: esm_class again :) ( binfo)
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 09:53:43AM -0200, Juan Nin wrote: Hi! Hey, I need to use esm_class 0 with a Telco. I could change Kannel's code to use it as default mode (but would mean running 2 different Kannel instances) or maybe use Enver Altin's smpp-esmclass-submissionmode patch. Although it's far from the perfect solution, the patch I've posted a while ago will work. -HTH -- Enver
Re: esm_class again :) ( binfo)
Enver ALTIN wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 09:53:43AM -0200, Juan Nin wrote: Hi! Hey, I need to use esm_class 0 with a Telco. I could change Kannel's code to use it as default mode (but would mean running 2 different Kannel instances) or maybe use Enver Altin's smpp-esmclass-submissionmode patch. Although it's far from the perfect solution, the patch I've posted a while ago will work. -HTH Maybe I'll use it, but I'd like to know what's that about binfo... It looks like Fred passes additional pairs of key:values without the need of patching Kannel... that would be great! :) Regarding you patch, it must be used with Kannel form CVS or can it be used with 1.4.0? Thanks again, Juan
