From a strictly linguistic point of view the sentence, “This is supported by all rtpengine commands except rtpengine_manage()” is at the end of the second paragraph, which is in reference to the second argument. I would take it to mean
that the second argument is not supported by rtpengine_manage() – not that the entire function is not supported. Does that seem correct?
As reference the full section:
---
5.1. set_rtpengine_set(setid[, setid])
Sets the ID of the RTP proxy set to be used for the next rtpengine_delete(), rtpengine_offer(), rtpengine_answer() or rtpengine_manage() command. The parameter can be an integer or a config variable holding an integer.
A second set ID can be specified to daisy-chain two RTP proxies. The two set IDs must be distinct from each other and there must not be any overlap in the proxies present in both sets. In this use case, the request (offer, answer, etc)
is first sent to an RTP proxy from the first set, which rewrites the SDP body and sends it back to the module. The rewritten SDP body is then used to make another request to an RTP proxy from the second set, which rewrites the SDP body another time and sends
it back to the module to be placed back into the SIP message. This is useful if you have a set of RTP proxies that the caller must use, and another distinct set of RTP proxies that the callee must use. This is supported by all rtpengine commands except rtpengine_manage().
---
From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla via sr-users <sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 2:25 AM
To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
Cc: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com>
Subject: [SR-Users] Re: Sharing load between rtpengine servers
|
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
|
Hello,
not sure why that remark is there, because contradicts with the first paragraph that has:
"Sets the ID of the RTP proxy set to be used for the next rtpengine_delete(), rtpengine_offer(),
rtpengine_answer() or rtpengine_manage() command."
-
https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/rtpengine.html#rtpengine.f.set_rtpengine_set
I don't think that the last statement is good, maybe it propagated without notice from a very old version. From code point of view, there is no reason for set_rtpengine_set()
not to work for rtpengine_manage(), this function is a pretty simple wrapper for rtpengine_offer()/_answer()/_delete().
I am going to remove that last statement from docs.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 09.11.23 01:06, David Cunningham via sr-users wrote:
It's on the page that you linked to: "This is supported by all rtpengine commands except rtpengine_manage()."
Hi David,
Whence the impression that sets aren't compatible with rtpengine_manage()?
https://kamailio.org/docs/modules/5.7.x/modules/rtpengine.html#rtpengine.f.set_rtpengine_set
"Sets the ID of the RTP proxy set to be used for the next rtpengine_delete(),
rtpengine_offer(), rtpengine_answer() or rtpengine_manage() command. The parameter
can be an integer or a config variable holding an integer."
Or are you using an earlier version of Kamailio in which this may not have been true?
-- Alex
> On 8 Nov 2023, at 18:52, David Cunningham <dcunningham@voisonics.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> Thank you for the reply. We use a large weight of 99999999 to send almost all calls to the 22.x and 33.x servers without using sets. We avoided sets because our Kamailio configuration uses rtpengine_manage(), which according to the documentation is not compatible
with set_rtpengine_set(). I'll try it without the 11.x server and the large weights, and see if the calls are evenly distributed between the 22.x and 33.x servers then.
>
> Thanks again.
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 at 10:25, Alex Balashov via sr-users <sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> From the docs:
>
> "The balancing inside a set is done automatically by the module based on the weight of each RTPEngine from the set. The default weight is 1, if another RTPEngine should be used twice as often as the first one, one would specify the weight 2 for this server,
for example."
>
> I am unsure as to what effect such large values as 99999999 might have on this arithmetic.
>
> It seems to me that if what you really want to accomplish is to evenly distribute calls between 22.22.22.22 and 33.33.33.33, with 11.11.11.11 only as a last-resort backup, then you should put the first two into one naive set without any weights, e.g.
>
> modparam("rtpengine_sock", "1 == udp:22.22.22.22:7724 udp:33.33.33.33:7724")
>
> Then put 11.11.11.11 into a set of its own:
>
> modparam("rtpengine_sock", "2 == udp:11.11.11.11:22724")
>
> By default, set 1 should be invoked:
>
> set_rtpengine_set("1");
> rtpengine_{offer,manage}("...");
>
> According to the docs, rtpengine_offer() will return a negative value if there is a failure of both:
>
> "The function will return true on success and false (-1) on various failures, like
> using rtp_engine_offer() on a SIP MESSAGE request or communication with rtpengine fails."
>
> Presumably, rtpengine_manage() does the same. Accordingly, you can do something like:
>
> set_rtpengine_set("1");
>
> if(!rtpengine_offer("...")) {
> if($rc == -1) {
> set_rtpengine_set("2");
> rtpengine_offer("...");
> }
> }
>
> Exact details and your mileage may vary.
>
> -- Alex
>
> > On 8 Nov 2023, at 15:33, David Cunningham via sr-users <sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > We have a Kamailio configuration with the following, however all the load is going to the server at 22.22.22.22 (hiding the real IP obviously) instead of being shared evenly between 22.22.22.22 and 33.33.33.33. Can anyone please tell me why? The rtpengine
server at 11.11.11.11 is intended to only receive calls if the other two are offline. Thank you very much.
> >
> > #!define RTPENGINE_ADDR
"udp:11.11.11.11:7724=1 udp:22.22.22.22:7724=99999999 udp:33.33.33.33:7724=99999999"
> >
> > modparam( "rtpengine", "rtpengine_sock", RTPENGINE_ADDR )
> >
> > --
> > David Cunningham, Voisonics Limited
> > http://voisonics.com/
> > USA: +1 213 221 1092
> > New Zealand: +64 (0)28 2558 3782
> > __________________________________________________________
> > Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
> > To unsubscribe send an email to
sr-users-leave@lists.kamailio.org
> > Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the sender!
> > Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:
>
> --
> Alex Balashov
> Principal Consultant
> Evariste Systems LLC
> Web: https://evaristesys.com
> Tel: +1-706-510-6800
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
> To unsubscribe send an email to
sr-users-leave@lists.kamailio.org
> Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the sender!
> Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:
>
>
> --
> David Cunningham, Voisonics Limited
> http://voisonics.com/
> USA: +1 213 221 1092
> New Zealand: +64 (0)28 2558 3782
--
Alex Balashov
Principal Consultant
Evariste Systems LLC
Web: https://evaristesys.com
Tel: +1-706-510-6800
--
David Cunningham, Voisonics Limited
http://voisonics.com/
USA: +1 213 221 1092
New Zealand: +64 (0)28 2558 3782
__________________________________________________________
Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
To unsubscribe send an email to sr-users-leave@lists.kamailio.org
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the sender!
Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla (@ asipto.com)
twitter.com/miconda -- linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Consultancy and Development Services
Kamailio Advanced Training - Online - Nov 14-16, 2023 -- asipto.com