Using smppbox id

[Rene Kluwen]

That's an alternative, yes...

-----Original Message-----
From: devel-bounces at kannel.org [mailto:devel-bounces at kannel.org] On Behalf
Of Aarno Syvänen
Sent: Friday, 28 October, 2011 10:18
To: devel at kannel.org Devel
Subject: Re: Using smppbox id

What about routing by smsc id and perhaps by shotcode, as bearerbox
currently does ?

Aarno

On 27.10.2011, at 22:52, Rene Kluwen wrote:

> An additional dlr field will work for DLR's.
> But how do you think about routing MO's?
> 
> == Rene
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: devel-bounces at kannel.org [mailto:devel-bounces at kannel.org] On Behalf
> Of Aarno Syvänen
> Sent: Thursday, 27 October, 2011 15:51
> To: devel at kannel.org Devel
> Subject: Re: Using smppbox id
> 
> I like more an additional dlr table field.  Msg id is actually a generally
> useful field here.
> 
> Aarno
> 
> On 27.10.2011, at 12:19, Alexander Malysh wrote:
> 
>> or use metadata to store it...
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>> Am 27.10.2011 um 10:36 schrieb Aarno Syvänen:
>> 
>>> Hi Alex,
>>> 
>>> yes, I agree that a new dlr field would be better.
>>> 
>>> Aarno
>>> 
>>> On 27.10.2011, at 09:51, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Aarno,
>>>> 
>>>> dict is not good because bearerbox can be restarted in the meantime and
> if you have much traffic
>>>> dict will fill the memory. Maybe additional field in DLR DB?
>>>> 
>>>> Alex
>>>> 
>>>> Am 27.10.2011 um 09:43 schrieb Aarno Syvänen:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I work on patch that uses dict mapping incoming smpp client box id to
> msg id-
>>>>> When DLR is retuned, original box id is restored using this dict.
>>>>> 
>>>>> MOs could be routed by smsc id, as presently, but by smppbox.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Aarno
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 27.10.2011, at 09:31, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I also don't like separate bearerbox connections but how should
> multiple smppbox setup handled if ESME can connect
>>>>>> to each of them? Static routing in bearerbox doesn't work here.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Am 27.10.2011 um 09:06 schrieb Aarno Syvänen:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> patch as I posted it is indeed not needed. But do we need separate
>>>>>>> bearerbox connection for every smppbox client ? IMHO, this should
>>>>>>> be changed, too.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Aarno
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 26.10.2011, at 01:06, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> seems reasonable for me. Why we need the patch from Aarno then?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Am 21.10.2011 um 22:41 schrieb Rene Kluwen:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Yes, opensmppbox opens a separate box connection per connected
> client.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I've heard before that using system-id is indeed more useful. So
if
> you
>>>>>>>>> want, go for that by using use-systemid-as-smsboxid or simply set
> the
>>>>>>>>> system-type equal to system-id in clients.txt.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: Alexander Malysh [mailto:malysh00 at googlemail.com] On Behalf
> Of
>>>>>>>>> Alexander Malysh
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 20 October, 2011 10:05
>>>>>>>>> To: Rene Kluwen
>>>>>>>>> Cc: 'Aarno Syvänen'; devel at kannel.org
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Using smppbox id
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> But the box-id is for the whole box connection or does smppbox
open
> extra
>>>>>>>>> box connection to bearerbox for
>>>>>>>>> each ESME?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Am 19.10.2011 um 23:22 schrieb Rene Kluwen:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Because the return messsges should be routed to the original
> client that
>>>>>>>>> sent the first message to begin with...
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
>>>>>>>>>> Van: Alexander Malysh <amalysh at kannel.org>
>>>>>>>>>> Verzonden: woensdag 19 oktober 2011 21:28
>>>>>>>>>> Aan: Rene Kluwen <rene.kluwen at chimit.nl>
>>>>>>>>>> CC: 'Aarno Syvänen' <as at gni.ch>; devel at kannel.org
>>>>>>>>>> Onderwerp: Re: Using smppbox id
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> why box-id per client? I meant box-id per smppbox. Why do you
want
> box-id
>>>>>>>>> per client?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Am 19.10.2011 um 21:17 schrieb Rene Kluwen:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> So you want a config option for boxc-id per client?
>>>>>>>>>>> This is the same as configuring a system-type, isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree, it's a hack. But better than cluttering the config
> files.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> == Rene
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>> From: devel-bounces at kannel.org [mailto:devel-bounces at kannel.org]
> On
>>>>>>>>> Behalf
>>>>>>>>>>> Of Alexander Malysh
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 19 October, 2011 19:41
>>>>>>>>>>> To: Aarno Syvänen
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: devel at kannel.org Devel
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Using smppbox id
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> just looked through the source code and I can only agree with
> Andreas:
>>>>>>>>>>> system-type has nothing todo with box-id.
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know who uses it and why but it's totally wrong. I would
> just
>>>>>>>>> remake
>>>>>>>>>>> this part and make it straight forward 
>>>>>>>>>>> from design and understanding perspective: kill existing box-id
> hack and
>>>>>>>>>>> implement clean config options for box-id
>>>>>>>>>>> and use _only_ these.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> @Aarno: you changed the code for data_sm only, how about
> submit_sm?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 19.10.2011 um 15:26 schrieb Aarno Syvänen:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> This relies on assumption that no two smppbox share a client. I
> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> accept this.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides, I can have two smppboxes connected to my application
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Aarno
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.10.2011, at 15:19, Rene Kluwen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said before: In clients.txt, you can put system-type to
> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opensmppbox-id and you are all set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> == Rene
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: devel-bounces at kannel.org
> [mailto:devel-bounces at kannel.org] On
>>>>>>>>>>> Behalf
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of Aarno Syvänen
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 19 October, 2011 09:35
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: devel at kannel.org Devel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Using smppbox id
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In my case, there is an application between bearerbox and
> smppbox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus application must route to smppbox and not to its clients.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aarno
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18.10.201
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> [Het originele bericht is niet volledig opgenomen]
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>