Re: Kannel concatenation bug & Q

2005-01-27 Thread Oscar Medina Duarte
Hi!

Here is the example:

I sent:
0123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789morethan160bytes

like:

http://localhost:64235/cgi-bin/sendsms?user=foo\&password=bar\&from=12345\&to=54321\&text=0123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789morethan160bytes

and by sniffing I got:

   00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 08 00 45 00  ..E.
0010   01 03 65 ee 40 00 40 06 d6 04 7f 00 00 01 7f 00  [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]@.
0020   00 01 80 2c 27 11 6b cb 19 15 6c 60 58 c0 80 18  ...,'.k...l`X...
0030   7f ff b7 49 00 00 01 01 08 0a 00 03 11 1c 00 02  ...I
0040   ff 06 00 00 00 cf 00 00 00 04 00 00 00 00 00 00  
0050   00 0a 00 00 01 31 32 33 34 35 00 02 01 35 34 33  .12345...543
0060   32 31 00 43 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 9f 05 00 03  21.C
0070   02 02 01 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30 31 32  ...0123456789012
0080   33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  3456789012345678
0090   39 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30 31 32 33 34  9012345678901234
00a0   35 36 37 38 39 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30  5678901234567890
00b0   31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  1234567890123456
00c0   37 38 39 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30 31 32  7890123456789012
00d0   33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  3456789012345678
00e0   39 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30 31 32 33 34  9012345678901234
00f0   35 36 37 38 39 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30  5678901234567890
0100   31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30 31 32 04 26 00 01  123456789012.&..
0110   01  (Checkout the last 5 bytes)
for the first message , and

   00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 08 00 45 00  ..E.
0010   00 7c 65 ef 40 00 40 06 d6 8a 7f 00 00 01 7f 00  .|[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]@.
0020   00 01 80 2c 27 11 6b cb 19 e4 6c 60 58 d9 80 18  ...,'.k...l`X...
0030   7f ff 5a 25 00 00 01 01 08 0a 00 03 11 1e 00 03  ..Z%
0040   11 1e 00 00 00 48 00 00 00 04 00 00 00 00 00 00  .H..
0050   00 0b 00 00 01 31 32 33 34 35 00 02 01 35 34 33  .12345...543
0060   32 31 00 43 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 1d 05 00 03  21.C
0070   02 02 02 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 6d 6f 72 65 74 68  ...3456789moreth
0080   61 6e 31 36 30 62 79 74 65 73an160bytes

For the second message.

As you can see, the UDH is where it sould, but there are some 5 bytes at
the end of the first message that I just cant recognize.

Thanx!
==Oscar

On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 02:27, Aarno Syvänen wrote:
> Can you send an example segment ? UDH is at the beginning.
> 
> Aarno
> 
> On 26.1.2005, at 23:27, Oscar Medina Duarte wrote:
> 
> > Hi
> >
> > On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 04:08, Aarno Syvänen wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 26.1.2005, at 03:04, Oscar Medina Duarte wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi list !
> >>>
> >>> I'm doing some tests with Kannel's concatenation, and there are two
> >>> things I found relevant (4 me al least).
> >>>
> >>> First, messages part of a concatenated message have a 159 chars long
> >>> message body (Including headers), while IMO (cause I dont remember 
> >>> that
> >>> being an issue in concatenation specs {ETSI TS 03.40 v7.5.0 @
> >>> 9.2.3.24})
> >>> should/could be 160, in this case, for me it seems like we are not
> >>> using
> >>> one char per message.
> >>>
> >>> Second, in all of the "not last" messages of a concatenated long
> >>> message, there are 5 bytes at the end that look like a IE for me, 
> >>> those
> >>> are : 0x04 0x26 0x00 0x01 0x01. I dont have a clue on what that IE
> >>> looking might be, could some one please tell me?
> >>
> >> This cannot be IE. First byte would be information element identifier,
> >> second
> >> information element length. So (8 byte) concatenation IE should start
> >> with
> >> 0x00 0x03.
> >
> > mhmh... OK, then, any ideas, what would those 5 bytes might be?
> >
> >> Kannel would not split an escaped character, so sometimes segments can
> >> be
> >> shorter.
> >
> > I'm not escaping any chars, Im just sending plain ascii text numbers.
> >
> > thanx !
> > ==Oscar
> >
> >
> 




Re: Kannel concatenation bug & Q

2005-01-26 Thread Aarno Syvänen

Hi,
On 26.1.2005, at 03:04, Oscar Medina Duarte wrote:
Hi list !
I'm doing some tests with Kannel's concatenation, and there are two
things I found relevant (4 me al least).
First, messages part of a concatenated message have a 159 chars long
message body (Including headers), while IMO (cause I dont remember that
being an issue in concatenation specs {ETSI TS 03.40 v7.5.0 @ 
9.2.3.24})
should/could be 160, in this case, for me it seems like we are not 
using
one char per message.

Second, in all of the "not last" messages of a concatenated long
message, there are 5 bytes at the end that look like a IE for me, those
are : 0x04 0x26 0x00 0x01 0x01. I dont have a clue on what that IE
looking might be, could some one please tell me?
This cannot be IE. First byte would be information element identifier, 
second
information element length. So (8 byte) concatenation IE should start 
with
0x00 0x03.

Kannel would not split an escaped character, so sometimes segments can 
be
shorter.

Aarno



Kannel concatenation bug & Q

2005-01-25 Thread Oscar Medina Duarte
Hi list !

I'm doing some tests with Kannel's concatenation, and there are two
things I found relevant (4 me al least).

First, messages part of a concatenated message have a 159 chars long
message body (Including headers), while IMO (cause I dont remember that
being an issue in concatenation specs {ETSI TS 03.40 v7.5.0 @ 9.2.3.24})
should/could be 160, in this case, for me it seems like we are not using
one char per message.

Second, in all of the "not last" messages of a concatenated long
message, there are 5 bytes at the end that look like a IE for me, those
are : 0x04 0x26 0x00 0x01 0x01. I dont have a clue on what that IE
looking might be, could some one please tell me?


Cheers !

== Oscar
OM MANI PEME HUM