Re: [Serusers] Carrier-grade framework for SER

Dear Andreas, As I indicated in an earlier email, I would be interested in taking part in a joint effort to further develop ser's high-availability and scalability (HAS). I would probably have to do some development anyway, and I would prefer to see such support in the public domain. In Nov/Dec I called for responses on a SOAP-based provisioning interface, but heard nothing, so here is an overlap of interests. Please see inline comments. Andreas Granig wrote: If we are to define the elements required as part of a HAS-effort, I think I would also include load balancing across servers in a single data center, not only distribution of usrloc/alias replication across centers. You mentioned yourself the problem of clients not supporting DNS SRV. I think some kind of reference design using Linux HA or virtual server would be useful for the community. I have seen several people asking questions, but I haven't seen documentation of a successful implementation. The reference design must of course handle NAT traversal and the possibility of RTP proxying. Anybody with experiences or thoughts? yes, I see you here define a more general network wrapper to the FIFO. Why not extend the scope right now to support any FIFO implemented command, also future? If FIFO writing is not possible, I believe an alert should be made and the request left in a transaction queue. There is probably a reason for the FIFO error and also writing directly to the database will mess up the synch between DB and server. I agree that that each node should be independent. I once implemented a token ring-like system where each node would report its existance. Something similar would be appropriate. We could even use SIP REGISTER from each client using a specifically crafted username and use NOTIFYs to update everybody about changes :-) Each client could use its local ser server to lookup contacts. Well, this could create a dependency loop, but it was sort of a cool idea ... Bringing up new clients will of course need some special thoughts in terms of their status and at what point in replication they should enter. Probably each transaction should use a unique transaction id... Why do you think SOAP should be dropped? If this is to be a general module for both provisioning and replication across servers, we must handle many different usage scenarios, ex. provisioning over the Internet, and we should use a framework where we can get as much as possible for "free", ex. SSL/TLS, authentication etc. In my experience, SOAP can be both simple and fast and there are far more auto-generation tools/frameworks etc for SOAP. A simple RPC-type SOAP message is not really far from XML-RPC, basically an envelope extra. The ability to auto-generate a client based on a WSDL file is pretty nice, as well. With regards to ICE, we should probably avoid using toolkits where commercial licenses must be bought for commercial usage. I have used gSOAP (http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~engelen/soap.html), which is a powerful, but very simple to use C/C++. Ditto. I have here contributed to increasing the scope... But I think the correct approach would be to make something simple in the beginning, maybe only the provisioning and the queue and a text-based config file for clients to replicate to. We could then add the ser module for forwarding usrloc to the local client. Andreas: What's your time scope? Core developers of ser: I think we need your opinion(s) before we start anything?! Regards, Greger _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers