Hi sir, thanks a lot for the great work you are doing! I have a silly question... I need to keep some session information (to forward the call via "appropriate" server). Is it possible to obtain hostname from ser.cfg or I should implement some proprietary external coding...? Thanks in advance, Tina
--- "Greger V. Teigre" greger@teigre.com wrote:
I was thinking about a load balancing scenario where the load balancer will replace the IP addresses. g-)
---- Original Message ---- From: Tina To: Greger V. Teigre Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 09:45 PM Subject: Re: [Serusers] still no help - usrloc synchronization
Thank you for givingme the scenario with
"restricted IP" NAT, I am
starting to find some acceptable solution. Unfortunately, "one-public-IP" approach is not
free from problems
also. If your SIP router inserts this
"one-public-IP" into the VIA
header, the reply routing goes via wrong SIP
server...
If your SIP server inserts its real-IP-address -
the scenario
mentioned above is still not resolved. Any comments? Tina
"Greger V. Teigre" greger@teigre.com wrote: See inline.
If you use DNS server for load balancing... the
client receives one
of your domain IP addresses according to SRV. I
don't see the problem
with a call here, cause UAC asks the address only
once (before
sending INVITE). UAC already has the IP for
BYE/reINVITEs. So why
would you replicate INVITEs?
I would never replicate INVITEs, I would just make
sure that they are
proxied through the correct SER server (i.e. IP).
The problems depends on your setup. If you have
SERs with different
IPs, ex UA1 has registered with server A and UA2
has registered with
server B: If UA2 wants to call UA1 and UA is
behind an IP restricted
NAT, server A is stored in the NAT table of the
NAT in front of UA1.
If server B sends an INVITE to UA1, the INVITE
will be refused by
UA1's NAT. This is why a "one public IP" in front of a
load balancing
cluster probably is a good way to go.
If you use IPVS/LVS... I believe you can force
SER to insert it's
public IP into VIA, so there is no problem with
replies. With regard
to another requests, I believe load balancer
keeps connection
template, then when another request comes it
would be forwarded to
the same ser.
Yes. There are different "keys" to use to load
balance SIP messages.
One good way from a NAT point of view is to use
originating IP
address. What you must remember is that the
problem is not on the
server side, but on the client side. The NAT will
in many situations
stop incoming UDP packets if the originating
ip:port is not already
stored in the NAT table. The Via header does not
matter for the NAT.
g-)
Any comments?
"Greger V. Teigre" greger@teigre.com wrote: Yes, I believe that is so. But still you get a
problem if the NAT is
restricted, port-restricted or symmetric... The
best would be to load
balance and always make sure that a given client
is handled through a
given SER (REGISTER and INVITEs). That includes
forwarding INVITEs from one
SER to another... OR you must load balance in front of
your servers with one
common public IP. g-)
Matt Schulte wrote:
Ack, I didn't even think about NAT. Would these
be added before it
gets sent off to the second proxy? ie:
if (!src_ip==blah.netlogic.net) { add_rcv_param(); t_replicate("blah.netlogic.net", "999"); };
-----Original Message----- From: Greger V. Teigre
[mailto:greger@teigre.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:49 AM To: Matt Schulte; kramarv@yahoo.com ! ; Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] still no help - usrloc
synchronization
Well, you still have the NAT issues unless you
do load balancing and
your SER servers have the same public IP. Have you looked at 0.9.0 nathelper function
add_rcv_param() ? It
will add received info to the contact header for
the other SER to
process. Haven't really tried yet... g-)
Matt Schulte wrote:
I'm starting to lean this direction, using
t_replicate and all. I
could never get usrloc (db mode) to function
properly.. t_replicate
is
a dirty but very effective workaround.
-----Original Message----- From: Greger V. Teigre
[mailto:greger@teigre.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 1:33 AM To: kramarv@yahoo.com Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] still ! no help -
usrloc synchronization
Have a look at this thread:
http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serusers/2005-January/014669.html
g-)
Java Rockx wrote:
Tina,
I thought I saw you post the other day that
you did not want to
use t_replicate(), however, this is probably
your best bet to
getting this
to work, IMHO.
Regards, Paul
On Apr 1, 2005 4:08 PM, Tina wrote:
! >>
> Hi, please help me, I'm stuck with it!!!!! > I am trying to set up several sers with a
shared MySQL database
> for location service. > > I set in each ser.cfg: > > modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 2) > modparam("usrloc", >
"db_url","sql://ser:heslo@192.168.25.163/ser")
> > and the servers are not synchronized. > The I set > modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 2) > > > made UAC (Xlite) register to one of the
servers.
> I see it via usrloc, but there is no record
in "location" mySQL
> table....So others do not see the client and
I'm unable to make
> calls.... > > > Please help how to work with usrloc and
mySQL...
> > Tina, > software engineer > > ________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Better first dates. More second dates. Yahoo!
Personals
> > >
> Serusers mailing list > serusers@lists.iptel.org >
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> > >
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like.
Join the fun.
Do you Yahoo!? Better first dates. More second dates. Yahoo!
Personals
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com