Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 6893295
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 27, 20262026-05-27T06:38:28+00:00 2026-05-27T06:38:28+00:00

I have a Kannel gateway with multiple SMPP binds ( one operator requires separate

  • 0

I have a Kannel gateway with multiple SMPP binds ( one operator requires separate transmitter and receiver binds while another permits transceiver binds ). The transceiver binds do not display this problem, so I will not delve into more detail on those.

In the separate receiver / transmitter bind scenario, most ( but not all ) DLRs fail with “got DLR but could not find message or was not interested in it “, as shown in the log file extract below: ( some light anonymization has been done )

2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG: SMPP[tx_bind]: Sending PDU:
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG: SMPP PDU 0x12d76c0 dump:
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   type_name: submit_sm
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   command_id: 4 = 0x00000004
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   command_status: 0 = 0x00000000
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   sequence_number: 108 = 0x0000006c
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   service_type: "SHORT_CODE_REMOVED"
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   source_addr_ton: 0 = 0x00000000
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   source_addr_npi: 1 = 0x00000001
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   source_addr: "SHORT_CODE_REMOVED"
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   dest_addr_ton: 1 = 0x00000001
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   dest_addr_npi: 1 = 0x00000001
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   destination_addr: "PHONE_NUMBER_REMOVED"
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   esm_class: 3 = 0x00000003
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   protocol_id: 0 = 0x00000000
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   priority_flag: 0 = 0x00000000
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   schedule_delivery_time: NULL
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   validity_period: NULL
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   registered_delivery: 1 = 0x00000001
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   replace_if_present_flag: 0 = 0x00000000
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   data_coding: 0 = 0x00000000
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   sm_default_msg_id: 0 = 0x00000000
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   sm_length: 9 = 0x00000009
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   short_message: "test test"
2011-10-28 08:41:24 [6182] [9] DEBUG: SMPP PDU dump ends.
2011-10-28 08:41:26 [6182] [19] DEBUG: Dumping 47 messages to store
2011-10-28 08:41:28 [6182] [9] DEBUG: SMPP[tx_bind]: Got PDU:
2011-10-28 08:41:28 [6182] [9] DEBUG: SMPP PDU 0x12a6590 dump:
2011-10-28 08:41:28 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   type_name: submit_sm_resp
2011-10-28 08:41:28 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   command_id: 2147483652 = 0x80000004
2011-10-28 08:41:28 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   command_status: 0 = 0x00000000
2011-10-28 08:41:28 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   sequence_number: 108 = 0x0000006c
2011-10-28 08:41:28 [6182] [9] DEBUG:   message_id: "1673716701"
2011-10-28 08:41:28 [6182] [9] DEBUG: SMPP PDU dump ends.
2011-10-28 08:41:28 [6182] [9] DEBUG: DLR[mysql]: Adding DLR smsc=tx_bind, ts=1673716701, src=SHORT_CODE_REMOVED, dst=PHONE_NUMBER_REMOVED, mask=1, boxc=
2011-10-28 08:41:28 [6182] [9] DEBUG: sql: INSERT INTO dlr (smsc, ts, source, destination, service, url, mask, boxc, status) VALUES ('tx_bind', '1673716701', 'SHORT_CODE_REMOVED', 'PHONE_NUMBER_REMOVED', 'SHORT_CODE_REMOVED', 'DLR_CALLBACK_URL_REMOVED', '1', '', '0');
2011-10-28 08:41:30 [6182] [19] DEBUG: Dumping 46 messages to store
2011-10-28 08:41:30 [6182] [6] DEBUG: SMPP[saf_7777]: Sending enquire link:
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG: Optional parameter tag (0x001e)
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG: Optional parameter length read as 11
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG: Optional parameter tag (0x0427)
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG: Optional parameter length read as 1
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG: Optional parameter tag (0x1501)
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG: Optional parameter length read as 13
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] WARNING: SMPP: Unknown TLV(0x1501,0x000d,32353437323235303036303900) for PDU type (deliver_sm) received!
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG: SMPP[saf_receiver]: Got PDU:
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG: SMPP PDU 0x1275cc0 dump:
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   type_name: deliver_sm
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   command_id: 5 = 0x00000005
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   command_status: 0 = 0x00000000
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   sequence_number: 49 = 0x00000031
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   service_type: "SHORT_CODE_REMOVED"
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   source_addr_ton: 1 = 0x00000001
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   source_addr_npi: 1 = 0x00000001
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   source_addr: "PHONE_NUMBER_REMOVED"
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   dest_addr_ton: 0 = 0x00000000
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   dest_addr_npi: 1 = 0x00000001
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   destination_addr: "SHORT_CODE_REMOVED"
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   esm_class: 4 = 0x00000004
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   protocol_id: 0 = 0x00000000
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   priority_flag: 0 = 0x00000000
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   schedule_delivery_time: NULL
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   validity_period: NULL
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   registered_delivery: 0 = 0x00000000
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   replace_if_present_flag: 0 = 0x00000000
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   data_coding: 0 = 0x00000000
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   sm_default_msg_id: 0 = 0x00000000
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   sm_length: 111 = 0x0000006f
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   short_message:
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:    Octet string at 0x12e2da0:
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:      len:  111
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:      size: 112
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:      immutable: 0
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:      data: 69 64 3a 31 36 37 33 37 31 36 37 30 31 20 73 75   id:1673716701 su
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:      data: 62 3a 30 30 31 20 64 6c 76 72 64 3a 30 30 31 20   b:001 dlvrd:001
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:      data: 73 75 62 6d 69 74 20 64 61 74 65 3a 31 31 31 30   submit date:1110
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:      data: 32 38 30 38 34 31 20 64 6f 6e 65 20 64 61 74 65   280841 done date
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:      data: 3a 31 31 31 30 32 38 30 38 34 31 20 73 74 61 74   :1110280841 stat
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:      data: 3a 44 45 4c 49 56 52 44 20 65 72 72 3a 30 30 30   :DELIVRD err:000
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:      data: 20 74 65 78 74 3a 74 65 73 74 20 74 65 73 74       text:test test
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:    Octet string dump ends.
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   message_state: 2 = 0x00000002
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG:   receipted_message_id: "1673716701"
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG: SMPP PDU dump ends.
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG: SMPP[rx_bind] handle_pdu, got DLR
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG: DLR[mysql]: Looking for DLR smsc=tx_bind, ts=1673716701, dst=PHONE_NUMBER_REMOVED, type=1
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG: sql: SELECT mask, service, url, source, destination, boxc FROM dlr WHERE smsc='rx_bind' AND ts='1673716701';
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] DEBUG: no rows found
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] WARNING: DLR[mysql]: DLR from SMSC<rx_bind> for DST<PHONE_NUMBER_REMOVED> not found.
2011-10-28 08:41:33 [6182] [16] ERROR: SMPP[rx_bind]: got DLR but could not find message or was not interested in it id<1673716701> dst<PHONE_NUMBER_REMOVED>, type<1>

The respective binds are:

# The sender
group=smsc
smsc=smpp
smsc-id=tx_bind
allowed-smsc-id=tx_bind
preferred-smsc-id=SHORT_CODE_REMOVED
interface-version=34
host=SMSC_HOST_REMOVED
port=SMSC_PORT_REMOVED
system-id=SHORT_CODE_REMOVED
system-type=
service-type=SHORT_CODE_REMOVED
source-addr-ton=0
source-addr-npi=1
dest-addr-ton=1
dest-addr-npi=1
smsc-username=USERNAME_REMOVED
smsc-password=PASSWORD_REMOVED
log-level=0

# The receiver
group=smsc
smsc=smpp
smsc-id=rx_bind
interface-version=34
host=HOST_REMOVED
receive-port=PORT_REMOVED
system-type=
smsc-username=USERNAME_REMOVED
smsc-password=PASSWORD_REMOVED
log-level=0

My background research brought up these mailing list messages:
– http://www.kannel.org/pipermail/users/2011-July/016183.html
– http://old.nabble.com/Responsibility-for-inversion-of-source-and-destination-address-for-DLR-td32165725.html

It seems that Kannel saves the DLR immediately after the submit_sm with the smsc_id set to the tx_bind [ the sender’s SMSC id ]. Then, when the deliver_sm is received [ for this operator, it will usually come in via the rx_bind [ the receiver bind ], it attempts to look for it using that smsc_id.

Does anyone know of a workaround for this?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-27T06:38:28+00:00Added an answer on May 27, 2026 at 6:38 am

    As I can see from log and configuration file, you use different smsc sections for transmitter and receiver connections.

    So when Kannel tries to find original message it use smsc and message-id parameters. In your case smsc will have different values on submit_sm and deliver_sm processing.

    To resolve it just set-up single smsc group with:

    1. both port and receive-port inside
    2. transceiver-mode = 0 parameter (mean transmitter/receiver mode)

    Note: this port may be the same and often is the same on SMSC.

    Example (part of configuration):

    group=smsc
    smsc=smpp
    smsc-id=rx_tx_bind
    interface-version=34
    transceiver-mode = 0
    host=smsc.host.was.here
    port=TX_PORT
    receive-port=RX_PORT
    # other parameters here
    
    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have successfully written a class for sending SMS over kannel in Java. But
Have any one tried to activate fancybox thumbnail gallery using a button or an
I'm using Kannel as an SMS gateway to send and receive SMS messages. I
have Googled the cr*p out of this one so apologies if the answer is
Have just started using Google Chrome , and noticed in parts of our site,
Have you ever seen any of there error messages? -- SQL Server 2000 Could
Have you guys had any experiences (positive or negative) by placing your source code/solution
Have just started using Visual Studio Professional's built-in unit testing features, which as I
Have you used VS.NET Architect Edition's Application and System diagrams to start designing a
Have you determined a maximum number of characters allowed in FCKEditor ? I seem

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.