I was thinking somehow it would save me a mapping in the client, but I guess I
would still need to map the shortcodes in the client anyway.... hmmmUsing smsc
still seems a bit "cleaner" though, as I will be modifying the http out to send
a custom payload.
Also since all sms go through the 1 channel between smsc and smsbox, seems like
I'd acheiver higher tps by just bouncing back out.
What do you think ?
________________________________
From: Willy Mularto <sangpr...@gmail.com>
To: Brian McCavour <bmccav...@yahoo.com>
Cc: "'users@kannel.org'" <us...@vm1.kannel.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 9:01:39 PM
Subject: Re: MO routing
Why not use keyword? Then you will only need 1 smsbox and route it by keyword
right?
On Jan 10, 2013, at 4:48 AM, Brian McCavour wrote:
Hi folks,
>
>
>I am using Kannel for SMS only, and I have HTTP interfaces on both sides.
>For SendSMS, I configured user groups to route the MT to specific http smsc
>based on username field.
>
>
>Now I'm working on the MO part.
>Originally I wanted to route the MO traffic by setting up separate smsboxs
>each with its own sms-service
>Then use shortodes and smsbox-route configurations to target the right box,
>picking the default sms-service on that box.
>
>
>but then I got to thinking....
>Is there a way I can use some smsc instead of a some sms-service? (still using
>shortcodes for routing)
>
>
>This would
>
>1 - reduce the smsbox that I need to the 1 MT Sendsms box
>2 - reduce any overhead of routing between smsc and smsbox
>
>
>
>I see some things about MO to MT switching, but I want to keep it MO on its
>way out the http smsc...
>
>
>Anyone know of a configuration that could make this happen ?
>
>
>Thanks,
>Brian
>
>
Willy Mularto
F300HD+MR18DE (NLC1725)
