Sharing load between rtpengine servers

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Issue with Dialog Handling in...

Redis issue when getting results...

David Cunningham

8 Nov 2023 8 Nov '23

11:33 p.m.

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

Attachments:

attachment.html (text/html — 1.1 KB)

Show replies by date

Alex Balashov

9 Nov 9 Nov

12:19 a.m.

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(a)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(a)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

David Cunningham

2:52 a.m.

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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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

2:54 a.m.

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.… "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(a)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(a)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

-- Alex Balashov Principal Consultant Evariste Systems LLC Web: https://evaristesys.com Tel: +1-706-510-6800

David Cunningham

3:06 a.m.

...

On 8 Nov 2023, at 18:52, David Cunningham <dcunningham(a)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(a)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(a)lists.kamailio.org> wrote:

> > Hello, > > We have a Kamailio configuration with the following, however all the

> > #!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(a)lists.kamailio.org > Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only

to the sender!

Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:

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

Daniel-Constantin Mierla

11:24 a.m.

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#rtpengi… 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:

...

Hi Alex, It's on the page that you linked to: "This is supported by all rtpengine commands except rtpengine_manage()." Thanks. On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 at 12:55, Alex Balashov <abalashov(a)evaristesys.com> wrote: 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.… "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(a)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(a)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

<http://22.22.22.22:7724> udp:33.33.33.33:7724 <http://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

<http://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:

<sr-users(a)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"

reply only to the sender!

Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:

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

1:17 p.m.

Thank you, Daniel! I was just confused because I do use set_rtpengine_set() with rtpengine_manage() quite a lot, for some years now, and it works fine... -- Alex

...

On 9 Nov 2023, at 03:24, Daniel-Constantin Mierla via sr-users <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org> wrote: 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#rtpengi… 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:

-- 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 __________________________________________________________ Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions To unsubscribe send an email to sr-users-leave(a)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

Ben Kaufman

6:26 p.m.

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(a)lists.kamailio.org> Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 2:25 AM To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org> Cc: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)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#rtpengi… 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: Hi Alex, It's on the page that you linked to: "This is supported by all rtpengine commands except rtpengine_manage()." Thanks. On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 at 12:55, Alex Balashov <abalashov@evaristesys.com<mailto:abalashov@evaristesys.com>> wrote: 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.… "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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://22.22.22.22:7724/> udp:33.33.33.33:7724<http://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<http://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<mailto: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"<udp:11.11.11.11:7724=1udp:22.22.22.22:7724=99999999udp: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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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

Daniel-Constantin Mierla

6:58 p.m.

...

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(a)lists.kamailio.org> *Sent:* Thursday, November 9, 2023 2:25 AM *To:* Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org> *Cc:* Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)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#rtpengi… 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: Hi Alex, It's on the page that you linked to: "This is supported by all rtpengine commands except rtpengine_manage()." Thanks. On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 at 12:55, Alex Balashov <abalashov(a)evaristesys.com> wrote: 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.… "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(a)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(a)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

<http://22.22.22.22:7724/> udp:33.33.33.33:7724 <http://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

<http://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:

<sr-users(a)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" <udp:11.11.11.11:7724=1udp:22.22.22.22:7724=99999999udp:33.33.33.33:7724=99999999>

sr-users-leave(a)lists.kamailio.org

> Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not

reply only to the sender!

Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:

sr-users-leave(a)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

David Cunningham

7:28 p.m.

Thank you everyone, I appreciate that input. With the line changed to the following it does distribute load evenly; we'll try adding different sets soon. #!define RTPENGINE_ADDR "udp:22.22.22.22:7724 udp:33.33.33.33:7724" On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 at 05:11, Daniel-Constantin Mierla via sr-users < sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org> wrote:

...

You might be right. I haven't used second parameter for set_rtpengine_set(), I don't recall who implemented it, but maybe someone else can confirm if it is like that and eventually add a clearer sentence there. Cheers, Daniel On 09.11.23 16:26, Ben Kaufman wrote: 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(a)lists.kamailio.org> <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org> *Sent:* Thursday, November 9, 2023 2:25 AM *To:* Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org> <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org> *Cc:* Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com> <miconda(a)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#rtpengi… 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: Hi Alex, It's on the page that you linked to: "This is supported by all rtpengine commands except rtpengine_manage()." Thanks. On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 at 12:55, Alex Balashov <abalashov(a)evaristesys.com> wrote: 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.… "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(a)voisonics.com>

wrote:

Hi Alex, Thank you for the reply. We use a large weight of 99999999 to send

Thanks again. On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 at 10:25, Alex Balashov via sr-users <

sr-users(a)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")

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:

sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org> wrote:

> > Hello, > > We have a Kamailio configuration with the following, however all the

> > #!define RTPENGINE_ADDR "udp:11.11.11.11:7724=1

udp:22.22.22.22:7724=99999999 udp:33.33.33.33:7724=99999999"

to the sender!

Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:

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(a)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 -- 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 __________________________________________________________ Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions To unsubscribe send an email to sr-users-leave(a)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

Richard Fuchs

4 p.m.

On 08/11/2023 15.33, [EXT] David Cunningham via sr-users wrote:

...

I recall this was discussed on the mailing list before, but of course I can't find the relevant thread. What happens is that for legacy reasons (read: I don't really know why), if the default hashing algorithm (simple hash over call ID) is used, then the resulting weight is capped at 255. That means that no proxies beyond an accumulated weight of 255 will ever be used. So either keep the sum of your weights below that, or use a different hashing algorithm (CRC or SHA-1). Cheers

379

days inactive

380

days old

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

Manage subscription

10 comments

5 participants

tags (0)

participants (5)

Alex Balashov
Ben Kaufman
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
David Cunningham
Richard Fuchs