I think I may have solved my problems with usrloc replication, so I'm commenting my previous mail inline for anyone interested to see.
On Thursday 06 October 2005 19:01, George Perantinos wrote:
Dear list, I'm trying to implement registration replication between 2 SERs (ver. 0.9.4, they are AA behind an F5 BigIP). Both SERs are using the same mysql database and mediaproxy is used for RTP relaying (whenever needed). The basis for my configuration is the mediaproxy config from onsip.org (excellent work, many thanx guys).
I sould add here that I'm using caller-id stickiness with the BigIp.
My servers are 10.21.128.232 and 10.21.128.233. I'm using forward_tcp and save_memory for replication purposes, as can be seen in the following registration route block:
At first I realised that when replicating between SERs (whether using forward_tcp or t_replicate) you loose the NATed info for a UA. The nat flag will not be carried forward, so the SER that receives a replicated REGISTER will handle that UA as a UA with a real IP in future requests (the result of an INVITE is a timeout). To further complicate things, debugging with serctl for the NAT flag is worthless for this reason, as the ouput of "Flags:" field is not consistent between the 2 servers. (Some bug perhaps?)
route[2] {
# ----------------------------------------------------------------- # REGISTER Message Handler # ---------------------------------------------------------------- sl_send_reply("100", "Trying"); if(src_ip==10.21.128.233) {# If it is a forward from our brother then...
if (client_nat_test("3")) {# check if the user is NATed setflag(6); fix_nated_register(); force_rport(); };
One needs to set the nat flag if the REGISTER request is for NATed UA. The above client_nat_test I was doing is worthless (stupid mistake). I was checking if my server, that the replication originated from, was NATed... Of course, both my servers always are NATed. The only way that i can think of obtaining this info is by checking for private IPs in the contact header. Since the other server has already performed the nat_client_test on the UA, the fix_nated_register information exists (and is replicated correctly), so I think a plain search must be safe (though I would be glad to hear any objections). So, this block becomes:
if (search("^(Contact|m): .*@(192.168.|10.|172.16)")) { setflag(6); };
save_memory("location"); break;
This "break" was redundant, since I'm always breaking in my main routing block after proccessing in this block.
} else { if (!search("^Contact:[ ]*\*") && client_nat_test("7")) { setflag(6); fix_nated_register(); force_rport(); }; if (!radius_www_authorize("domain.com")) { www_challenge("domain.com","0"); xlog("L_NOTICE","Could not authorize user %fu, IP %is \n"); break; }; if (!check_to()) { sl_send_reply("401", "Unauthorized"); xlog("L_NOTICE","From: does not match URI:, user %fu, IP %is \n"); break; }; consume_credentials();
Despite doing all the above, still the NAT device was not keeping the binded port for the second SER. In my desparation, I removed the above above "consume_credentials();" and suddenly everything worked!! The second server begun at last to also send the magical natping to the client in order to keep the NAT binding open. But I don't get it... I'd be obliged to anyone that would step up and explain this to me...
if (!save("location")) { xlog("L_WARN","MYSQL down? Could not save location\n"); sl_reply_error(); }; xlog("L_INFO","Updating registration for user %fu, IP %is \n"); add_rcv_param(); if (!forward_tcp("10.21.128.233", 5060)) { xlog("L_WARN","Cannot replicate user %fu at server10.21.128.233\n"); }; }; }
When performing a "serctl ul show" on the servers, the results are as follows:
- For UAs coming from real IPs, serctl shows identical results on both
servers. 2) For NATed UAs there is difference in the "Flags:" field. On the server that initialy proccessed the request, the value of the "Flags" is 1 (OK!), while on the server that the registration was forwarded, the value of the "Flags" field is 257(??).
This issue still remains, just a little different. "Flags: 0" is replicated as "Flags: 256", while "Flags: 1" as "Flags: 257". (It looks as though {repl.flag} = {orig.flag} + 256)
My impression is that the Flags field should be 1 if a UA is NATed and 0 if not. Am I wrong?
If I'm right on the above, then shouldn't both servers show the same result in Flags (i.e. 1) for NATed clients?
On the other hand, if I restart SER (and the contacts are read from the database), then every "weird" 257 Flag is reset to 1, until the next UA re-registration (where it returns again to 257).
Thanx for any help, George.
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers