26 Feb
2004
26 Feb
'04
5:34 a.m.
On Thursday 26 February 2004 03:28, Arnd Vehling wrote:
Hello,
ive got a couple of question of the t_replicate feature of the tm module.
First, ive found the follwing note in modules/tm/README (8.0.12 CVS
stable): ----
* t_replicate should be done more cleanly--Vias, Routes,
etc. should be removed from a message prior to replicating
it (well, does not matter any longer so much as there is a
new replication module).
----
Can someone comment on what may be the consequences of using
t_replicate which is "not done so cleanly" and where i may
get a copy of this "new replication" module? If its under open source
licence, that is.
The new replication module is only available under commercial license. And as
you guess it is implemented much more cleaner ;) and more reliable.
t_replicate just forwards the request to another destination and consumes the
answer. And this dirty in many ways, but works for some simple scenarios.
Next question :) Is there any way that a failover
server pickups the
neccessary port bindings for portaones rtpproxy or do will all
"rtpproxied" sessions fail when a failover server will take over
a primary server?
As currently the rtp-proxy has to run on the same host as SER it does not make
much sence IMHO to think about taking over rtp-proxy sessions. Then you would
need some kind of rtp-proxy session replication, which should be easy when
the nathelper module and the rtp proxy ever uses IP protocol for
communication. But all this will only work if the backup server takes over
the IP of the failed server, and you are not using SRV backup servers for
example (except that a SRV backup can obviously also can takeover the IP).
Sounds like a nice and long-term HA project. But as RTP-proxying is (normaly)
only a fix for to many or broken NATs i think it would be a doubtfull
project.
Greetings
NO