It is the simplest ser.cfg you can imagine:
Route { forward(z.z.z.z,5060); }
The message enter in SER (y.y.y.y) as:
U x.x.x.x:5060 -> y.y.y.y:5060 REGISTER sip:213.203.128.126 SIP/2.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP x.x.x.x:5060;rport;branch=z9hG4bKFCDF5014775145F7BBFB33B621BC8BC0. From: openser sip:123456102@y.y.y.y;tag=1540538748. To: openser sip:123456102@y.y.y.y. Contact: "openser" sip:123456102@x.x.x.x:5060. Call-ID: 23FDB6F533AC4BCF840FD35F34B385FD@y.y.y.y. CSeq: 60558 REGISTER. Expires: 120. Max-Forwards: 70. User-Agent: X-Lite release 1103m. Content-Length: 0.
And goes out as:
U y.y.y.y:5060 -> z.z.z.z:5060 REGISTER sip:y.y.y.y SIP/2.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP y.y.y.y:5060;branch=0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 195.110.129.41:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bKFCDF5014775145F7BBFB33B621BC8BC0. From: openser sip:123456102@y.y.y.y;tag=1540538748. To: openser sip:123456102@y.y.y.y. Contact: "openser" sip:123456102@y.y.y.y:5060. Call-ID: 23FDB6F533AC4BCF840FD35F34B385FD@y.y.y.y. CSeq: 60558 REGISTER. Expires: 120. Max-Forwards: 70. User-Agent: X-Lite release 1103m. Content-Length: 0.
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri@iptel.org] Inviato: lunedì 12 novembre 2007 17.41 A: Stefano Capitanio; serusers@lists.iptel.org Oggetto: Re: [Serusers] R: Loadbalancing for interco
I haven't seen your config file, but normally it does not change Contacts. It changes contacts if it is configured to deal with NATs.
-jiri
At 17:20 12/11/2007, Stefano Capitanio wrote:
Ok, thanks for your answer, I understand your position.
Anyway I cannot understand why SER modify the Contact header without any
instruction about that in the config file...is there any reason concerning RFC compliance?
Best regards, Stefano
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri@iptel.org] Inviato: lunedì 12 novembre 2007 17.09 A: Stefano Capitanio; serusers@lists.iptel.org Oggetto: Re: [Serusers] Loadbalancing for interco
Well, load-balancing is not easy. To deal with issues like you are describing, your best choice is a load-balancer which is capable of working in transparent mode. We have such in our intelligence, some work, some less so, let me know if you need some intelligence on this.
-jiri
At 12:23 12/11/2007, Stefano Capitanio wrote:
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8251E.664EA61A"
Hi,
we are trying to do the same with our servers but we have some problem
with registrations:
it seem that when the REGISTER message pass through SER, the host-part
of
Contact field is modified with the local address of SER.
Is it a misconfiguration problem? Do you have experience in balancing also the registrations?
Thanks, Stefano
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 11:02 +0200, inge wrote:
Hi all,
Is there a way to have something like a loadbalancing on SER for
outgoing calls ?
I want to distribute the calls between two gateways. Ideally, with a
coefficient (ie. 60% for the first and 40% for the second).
Thanks for your support.
Adrien .L
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/