19 Jan
2005
19 Jan
'05
12:58 p.m.
Hi guys,
I'd like to propose another possibility for a highly-available and
scalable system design based on SER:
The problems I've encountered for scalable systems are:
- Distribution of the user location and alias location among the nodes
(user location is based on registrations, alias location comes from
web interfaces and is used for call forwarding).
- Reloading up to date location tables after breakdown and recovery of a
node
So I'm just thinking loud about the following provisioning system:
- Write a client which fulfills the this demands:
- Receive one or more locations from SER via a SER module or from a
web application and distribute them to other
known clients. Take care of retransmissions if a client isn't
reachable or reports a temporary failure.
- Receive one or more locations from other clients and write
them into the SER FIFO. If writing into the FIFO fails, try to
write directly into the database (location-table, alias-table etc.).
Report a temporary failure if this also fails.
Maybe a centralized server should be used which receives the locations
from the clients and distributes them to other clients, so that the
nodes just know about the server and nothing about other nodes. This
would make integration of new nodes easy.
On the other hand, it's another single point of failure, so a
decentralized solution should be considered. But that would mean that
you've to inform every node about the existence of a new node.
The protocol used between the nodes should be simple and fast. So I
think SOAP drops out here. Maybe XMLRPC or ICE
(http://www.zeroc.com/ice.html) could be used.
One might think now why not just use replication on SIP layer, but
t_replicate only supports one peer and you've no possibility to get
locations on a node while it's down. Replication of other location
tables like the alias-table is also not possible.
I'd be willing to release these parts as GPL for creating an open
framework for carrier-grade SER integration, so any feedback,
improvements or flames are highly welcome.
Cheers,
Andy
21 Jan
21 Jan
11:56 a.m.
Dear Andreas,
As I indicated in an earlier email, I would be interested in taking part in
a joint effort to further develop ser's high-availability and scalability
(HAS). I would probably have to do some development anyway, and I would
prefer to see such support in the public domain. In Nov/Dec I called for
responses on a SOAP-based provisioning interface, but heard nothing, so here
is an overlap of interests.
Please see inline comments.
Andreas Granig wrote:
Hi guys,
I'd like to propose another possibility for a highly-available and
scalable system design based on SER:
The problems I've encountered for scalable systems are:
- Distribution of the user location and alias location among the nodes
(user location is based on registrations, alias location comes from
web interfaces and is used for call forwarding).
- Reloading up to date location tables after breakdown and recovery
of a node
If we are to define the elements required as part of a HAS-effort, I think I
would also include load balancing across servers in a single data center,
not only distribution of usrloc/alias replication across centers. You
mentioned yourself the problem of clients not supporting DNS SRV. I think
some kind of reference design using Linux HA or virtual server would be
useful for the community. I have seen several people asking questions, but I
haven't seen documentation of a successful implementation. The reference
design must of course handle NAT traversal and the possibility of RTP
proxying.
Anybody with experiences or thoughts?
So I'm just thinking loud about the following
provisioning system:
- Write a client which fulfills the this demands:
- Receive one or more locations from SER via a SER module or from a
web application and distribute them to other
known clients. Take care of retransmissions if a client isn't
reachable or reports a temporary failure.
- Receive one or more locations from other clients and write
them into the SER FIFO. If writing into the FIFO fails, try to
write directly into the database (location-table, alias-table
etc.). Report a temporary failure if this also fails.
yes, I see you here define a more general network wrapper to the FIFO. Why
not extend the scope right now to support any FIFO implemented command, also
future?
If FIFO writing is not possible, I believe an alert should be made and
the request left in a transaction queue. There is probably a reason for the
FIFO error and also writing directly to the database will mess up the synch
between DB and server.
Maybe a centralized server should be used which
receives the locations
from the clients and distributes them to other clients, so that the
nodes just know about the server and nothing about other nodes. This
would make integration of new nodes easy.
On the other hand, it's another single point of failure, so a
decentralized solution should be considered. But that would mean that
you've to inform every node about the existence of a new node.
I agree that that each node should be independent. I once implemented a
token ring-like system where each node would report its existance.
Something similar would be appropriate. We could even use SIP REGISTER from
each client using a specifically crafted username and use NOTIFYs to update
everybody about changes :-) Each client could use its local ser server to
lookup contacts. Well, this could create a dependency loop, but it was sort
of a cool idea ...
Bringing up new clients will of course need some special thoughts in
terms of their status and at what point in replication they should enter.
Probably each transaction should use a unique transaction id...
The protocol used between the nodes should be simple
and fast. So I
think SOAP drops out here. Maybe XMLRPC or ICE
(http://www.zeroc.com/ice.html) could be used.
Why do you think SOAP should be dropped?
If this is to be a general module for both provisioning and replication
across servers, we must handle many different usage scenarios, ex.
provisioning over the Internet, and we should use a framework where we can
get as much as possible for "free", ex. SSL/TLS, authentication etc.
In my experience, SOAP can be both simple and fast and there are far
more auto-generation tools/frameworks etc for SOAP. A simple RPC-type SOAP
message is not really far from XML-RPC, basically an envelope extra. The
ability to auto-generate a client based on a WSDL file is pretty nice, as
well. With regards to ICE, we should probably avoid using toolkits where
commercial licenses must be bought for commercial usage.
I have used gSOAP (http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~engelen/soap.html), which is a
powerful, but very simple to use C/C++.
I'd be willing to release these parts as GPL for
creating an open
framework for carrier-grade SER integration, so any feedback,
improvements or flames are highly welcome.
Ditto.
I have here contributed to increasing the scope... But I think the correct
approach would be to make something simple in the beginning, maybe only the
provisioning and the queue and a text-based config file for clients to
replicate to. We could then add the ser module for forwarding usrloc to the
local client.
Andreas: What's your time scope?
Core developers of ser: I think we need your opinion(s) before we start
anything?!
Regards,
Greger
12:05 p.m.
You might allso want to check the LVS mailinglist, there is some
discussion going on for a SIP module for the LVS with call-id
persistence, that would solve distributing request among the real servers.
Greger V. Teigre wrote:
Dear Andreas,
As I indicated in an earlier email, I would be interested in taking
part in a joint effort to further develop ser's high-availability and
scalability (HAS). I would probably have to do some development
anyway, and I would prefer to see such support in the public domain.
In Nov/Dec I called for responses on a SOAP-based provisioning
interface, but heard nothing, so here is an overlap of interests.
Please see inline comments.
Andreas Granig wrote:
Hi guys,
I'd like to propose another possibility for a highly-available and
scalable system design based on SER:
The problems I've encountered for scalable systems are:
- Distribution of the user location and alias location among the nodes
(user location is based on registrations, alias location comes from
web interfaces and is used for call forwarding).
- Reloading up to date location tables after breakdown and recovery
of a node
If we are to define the elements required as part of a HAS-effort, I
think I would also include load balancing across servers in a single
data center, not only distribution of usrloc/alias replication across
centers. You mentioned yourself the problem of clients not supporting
DNS SRV. I think some kind of reference design using Linux HA or
virtual server would be useful for the community. I have seen several
people asking questions, but I haven't seen documentation of a
successful implementation. The reference design must of course handle
NAT traversal and the possibility of RTP proxying.
Anybody with experiences or thoughts?
So I'm just thinking loud about the following
provisioning system:
- Write a client which fulfills the this demands:
- Receive one or more locations from SER via a SER module or from a
web application and distribute them to other
known clients. Take care of retransmissions if a client isn't
reachable or reports a temporary failure.
- Receive one or more locations from other clients and write
them into the SER FIFO. If writing into the FIFO fails, try to
write directly into the database (location-table, alias-table
etc.). Report a temporary failure if this also fails.
yes, I see you here define a more general network wrapper to the
FIFO. Why not extend the scope right now to support any FIFO
implemented command, also future?
If FIFO writing is not possible, I believe an alert should be made
and the request left in a transaction queue. There is probably a
reason for the FIFO error and also writing directly to the database
will mess up the synch between DB and server.
Maybe a centralized server should be used which
receives the locations
from the clients and distributes them to other clients, so that the
nodes just know about the server and nothing about other nodes. This
would make integration of new nodes easy.
On the other hand, it's another single point of failure, so a
decentralized solution should be considered. But that would mean that
you've to inform every node about the existence of a new node.
I agree that that each node should be independent. I once implemented
a token ring-like system where each node would report its existance.
Something similar would be appropriate. We could even use SIP REGISTER
from each client using a specifically crafted username and use NOTIFYs
to update everybody about changes :-) Each client could use its local
ser server to lookup contacts. Well, this could create a dependency
loop, but it was sort of a cool idea ...
Bringing up new clients will of course need some special thoughts
in terms of their status and at what point in replication they should
enter. Probably each transaction should use a unique transaction id...
The protocol used between the nodes should be
simple and fast. So I
think SOAP drops out here. Maybe XMLRPC or ICE
(http://www.zeroc.com/ice.html) could be used.
Why do you think SOAP should be dropped?
If this is to be a general module for both provisioning and
replication across servers, we must handle many different usage
scenarios, ex. provisioning over the Internet, and we should use a
framework where we can get as much as possible for "free", ex.
SSL/TLS, authentication etc.
In my experience, SOAP can be both simple and fast and there are
far more auto-generation tools/frameworks etc for SOAP. A simple
RPC-type SOAP message is not really far from XML-RPC, basically an
envelope extra. The ability to auto-generate a client based on a WSDL
file is pretty nice, as well. With regards to ICE, we should probably
avoid using toolkits where commercial licenses must be bought for
commercial usage.
I have used gSOAP (http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~engelen/soap.html), which
is a powerful, but very simple to use C/C++.
I'd be willing to release these parts as GPL
for creating an open
framework for carrier-grade SER integration, so any feedback,
improvements or flames are highly welcome.
Ditto.
I have here contributed to increasing the scope... But I think the
correct approach would be to make something simple in the beginning,
maybe only the provisioning and the queue and a text-based config file
for clients to replicate to. We could then add the ser module for
forwarding usrloc to the local client.
Andreas: What's your time scope?
Core developers of ser: I think we need your opinion(s) before we
start anything?!
Regards,
Greger
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
7:46 p.m.
I've changed to the serdev list, I think it's ontopic there.
Greger V. Teigre wrote:
DNS SRV. I think some kind of reference design using
Linux HA or
virtual server would be useful for the community. I have seen several
people asking questions, but I haven't seen documentation of a
successful implementation. The reference design must of course handle
NAT traversal and the possibility of RTP proxying.
Ack. I heard about people testing
http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/software/ipvs.html with SER, but the
system design and the results are, well, closed.
yes, I see you here define a more general network
wrapper to the FIFO.
Why not extend the scope right now to support any FIFO implemented
command, also future?
Of course this should be possible.
If FIFO writing is not possible, I believe an alert
should be made
and the request left in a transaction queue. There is probably a reason
for the FIFO error and also writing directly to the database will mess
up the synch between DB and server.
I meant that when you definitely know that the SER is currently down you
could write directly to the database. On the other hand writing to the
DB would mean that you've to know the usrloc backend, so I agree that
this is not a good idea.
Bringing up new clients will of course need some
special thoughts in
terms of their status and at what point in replication they should
enter. Probably each transaction should use a unique transaction id...
Adding new SERs to a node isn't the common case I think. So I'd keep it
rather simple in the beginning and hardcode the peers in a file or
something like this. New contacts are automatically pushed to new nodes,
and the overall location table has to be pulled by the new node.
Just my opinion.
Why do you think SOAP should be dropped?
If this is to be a general module for both provisioning and
replication across servers, we must handle many different usage
scenarios, ex. provisioning over the Internet, and we should use a
framework where we can get as much as possible for "free", ex. SSL/TLS,
authentication etc.
In my experience, SOAP can be both simple and fast and there are far
more auto-generation tools/frameworks etc for SOAP. A simple RPC-type
SOAP message is not really far from XML-RPC, basically an envelope
extra. The ability to auto-generate a client based on a WSDL file is
pretty nice, as well.
I didn't perform a benchmark, just asked the mailserver guys here who
use SOAP for provisioning, and they say it's ok for a few requests per
second, but it will not perform for, say, 100 requests per second.
I have here contributed to increasing the scope... But
I think the
correct approach would be to make something simple in the beginning,
maybe only the provisioning and the queue and a text-based config file
for clients to replicate to. We could then add the ser module for
forwarding usrloc to the local client.
My current status is:
I've written a SER module that hooks into the usrloc module by using the
existing callback mechanism. On each change of a contact (insert,
update, delete, expire) the module connects via UNIX socket to a
external client and serializes the contact to the client via XML:
<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<contact>
<reptype>update</reptype>
<domain>bG9jYXRpb24=</domain>
<aor>MDE4OTA5MDAy</aor>
<c>c2lwOjAxODkwOTAwMkA4My42NS40MC44Nzo1MDYwO3VzZXI9cGhvbmU7dHJhbnNwb3J0PXVkcA==</c>
<expires>1106312247</expires>
<q>-1</q>
<callid>MTkzNDY0MjcxN0A4My42NS40MC44Nw==</callid>
<cseq>15</cseq>
<replicate>0</replicate>
<state>1</state>
<flags>0</flags>
<user_agent>Q2lzY28gQVRBIDE4NiAgdjMuMi4wIGF0YXNpcCAoMDQxMTExQSk=</user_agent>
</contact>
Note that strings except reptype are base64 encoded.
The structure of the message will maybe change alot when we've defined
the details (which protocol, which messages etc), the current module
version is just a proof of concept, how contacts can be passed out of
the SER. So please continue contributing ideas ;o)
Btw, for serializing the ucontact_t structure to XML I use the structs
mechanism of libpdel (http://www.dellroad.org/pdel/index).
The external client (most of it has still to be implemented) has a list
of peers where this message has to be send to. If sending fails, it will
be put in a queue, and a timer triggers a retransmission.
Clients also listen for such replication messages from other peers and
write them to the SER fifo (or maybe directly via the module, don't know
yet ;o)
The external client can also be reused for provisioning, because you
just have to build the XML string in your web application and send it
via UNIX socket to the client like the SER module does.
Btw, as you can see: My time scope is ASAP ;o)
Andy
10:21 p.m.
Greger V. Teigre writes:
As I indicated in an earlier email, I would be
interested in taking part in
a joint effort to further develop ser's high-availability and scalability
(HAS). I would probably have to do some development anyway, and I would
prefer to see such support in the public domain. In Nov/Dec I called for
responses on a SOAP-based provisioning interface, but heard nothing,
so here is an overlap of interests.
greger,
we have done some work on xmlprc based provisioning and it looks
promising. xmlrpc spec is three pages long and even i can understand
it. soap spec, on the other hand, is far too thick and goes way above
my head.
-- juha
25 Jan
25 Jan
9:29 a.m.
Juha,
Yes, I completely agree with you. However, I don't need to read the spec and
far from understand it before I use it... ;-) So I did start to look at
SOAP and have very good experiences, both in terms of usability and
scalability.
But, I don't have strong opinions, if the people who are going to use
the interface are all against SOAP, XMLRPC is the right choice.
The xmlrpc-provisioning work you have done, can it be coordinated with
Andreas' effort?
g-)
Juha Heinanen wrote:
Greger V. Teigre writes:
As I indicated in an earlier email, I would be
interested in taking
part in a joint effort to further develop ser's high-availability
and scalability (HAS). I would probably have to do some development
anyway, and I would prefer to see such support in the public domain.
In Nov/Dec I called for responses on a SOAP-based provisioning
interface, but heard nothing,
so here is an overlap of interests.
greger,
we have done some work on xmlprc based provisioning and it looks
promising. xmlrpc spec is three pages long and even i can understand
it. soap spec, on the other hand, is far too thick and goes way above
my head.
-- juha
10:21 a.m.
Greger V. Teigre writes:
The xmlrpc-provisioning work you have done, can it be
coordinated with
Andreas' effort?
i don't know about andrea's efforts, but i used xmlrpc for registering
ser users' phone numbers with tier-1 enum database in finland. finnish
authorities had specified xmlrpc interface for that purpose.
-- juha
12:36 p.m.
Juha Heinanen wrote:
i don't know about andrea's efforts, but i
used xmlrpc for registering
ser users' phone numbers with tier-1 enum database in finland. finnish
authorities had specified xmlrpc interface for that purpose.
In short, I plan to write an xmlrpc-based provisioning system for
distributing FIFO commands. The main focus is sharing registration
contacts and aliases among different SERs (all the data that can't be
replicated on a lower (database) layer due to memory caching).
There's an external application on each SER host receiving contacts from
a SER module via a local socket. These contacts are wrapped into xmlrpc
(in fact the contact is converted into a FIFO command which is wrapped
into xmlrpc) and are distributed to the same application on other SER
hosts, which writes them into the SER FIFO. If an application is
unreachable or reports an error, the distributed FIFO command is queued.
The application can receive arbitrary FIFO commands, and a flag
indicates if the command should be redistributed to the other hosts.
Andy
10:15 p.m.
Andreas Granig writes:
In short, I plan to write an xmlrpc-based provisioning
system for
distributing FIFO commands. The main focus is sharing registration
contacts and aliases among different SERs (all the data that can't be
replicated on a lower (database) layer due to memory caching).
is replication of register requests to other sers too slow for you?
regarding aliases, i don't use aliases table at all. i return the
possible aliases called user as reply items to radius_does_uri_exist
call.
There's an external application on each SER host
receiving contacts from
a SER module via a local socket. These contacts are wrapped into xmlrpc
(in fact the contact is converted into a FIFO command which is wrapped
into xmlrpc) and are distributed to the same application on other SER
hosts, which writes them into the SER FIFO. If an application is
unreachable or reports an error, the distributed FIFO command is
queued.
this is close to what i did when i wrote fifo server. separate fifo
server was supposed to be a temporary thing that can go away when ser
learns to receive fifo commands over tcp. i still think that it is a
bad idea to introduce a new process to the system that can go down
requiring queuing and other complexities. so why just not introduce tcp
support for ser fifo?
-- juha
26 Jan
26 Jan
12:32 p.m.
Juha Heinanen wrote:
is replication of register requests to other sers too
slow for you?
With t_replicate() only two SERs can replicate back and forth, and with
stateless forward()ing packets may get lost because of missing
retransmission.
Beside that the domain tables (location etc) get out of synch if one of
the SERs is down for a moment, because retransmission is only tried a
few times.
Or is somebody aware of other possibilities for replication?
regarding aliases, i don't use aliases table at
all. i return the
possible aliases called user as reply items to radius_does_uri_exist
call.
I use different domains for call forwarding, like cfuc for call forward
unconditional, cfb for call forward on busy and so on:
In main route I have a routing logic like this
if(lookup("cfuc")) { /* cfuc active */ }
if(lookup("location") { /* a voip call */ }
else { /* a pstn call */ }
t_relay();
and in a failure route for example:
if(t_check_status("486") && lookup("cfb"))
{/*call forward on busy, relay*/}
So I register call forwarding destinations like aliases, like:
serctl cfuc add <real-user-name> sip:<forwarded-uri>
These domains also have to be replicated among the SERs like the
location domain.
this is close to what i did when i wrote fifo server.
separate fifo
server was supposed to be a temporary thing that can go away when ser
learns to receive fifo commands over tcp. i still think that it is a
bad idea to introduce a new process to the system that can go down
requiring queuing and other complexities. so why just not introduce tcp
support for ser fifo?
Queueing has to be done anyway, because if one SER is down for, say, ten
minutes, the registrations received in that time on other SERs have to
be replicated to that SER.
So you could do the queueing in a SER replication module, or just pass
the modified contacts to an external application that handles this.
If the external application isn't reachable, the module could write the
contact messages to a DB table instead, which is read by the application
periodically.
Andy
27 Jan
27 Jan
4:22 a.m.
Andreas Granig writes:
With t_replicate() only two SERs can replicate back
and forth, and with
stateless forward()ing packets may get lost because of missing
retransmission.
you can have any number of proxies participating in replication. you
just check that you don't replicate a request that came from another
proxy. what comes to packets getting lost, that is again udp vs. tcp
issue.
Beside that the domain tables (location etc) get out
of synch if one of
the SERs is down for a moment, because retransmission is only tried a
few times.
i don't see why this needs to be the case with db mode 2. when ser
comes back up, it updates its location table from database.
In main route I have a routing logic like this
if(lookup("cfuc")) { /* cfuc active */ }
if(lookup("location") { /* a voip call */ }
else { /* a pstn call */ }
t_relay();
and in a failure route for example:
if(t_check_status("486") && lookup("cfb"))
{/*call forward on busy, relay*/}
So I register call forwarding destinations like aliases, like:
serctl cfuc add <real-user-name> sip:<forwarded-uri>
i can't say anything about that, but you could also put forwarding info
into avps and not use location table at all for them. thne you would
have one less availability thing to worry about.
Queueing has to be done anyway, because if one SER is
down for, say, ten
minutes, the registrations received in that time on other SERs have to
be replicated to that SER.
when ser comes up, it reads initializes its location info from
database. so i don't see your point here.
-- juha
12:09 p.m.
Juha Heinanen wrote:
I think mode 1 (Write-Through) should be used because the SER could
start up while some of the contacts aren't flushed to DB yet.
However, how would you set up your database connections here? Using a
common usrloc database for all hosts (-> single point of failure)? This
is the main point. _How_ do you share the contacts as reliable as
possible so that a host can go down for a while without getting out of
synch regarding the contacts?
Andy
you can have any number of proxies participating in
replication.
What method are you thinking of? t_replicate() reports
ERROR: t_newtran: transaction already in process 0x4054d5ec
if you call it twice, like
t_replicate("foohost", "5060");
t_replicate("barhost", "5060");
Or do you mean something like
forward_tcp("foohost", "5060");
forward_tcp("barhost", "5060");
and on the receiving hosts
if(/* register from replicating host */)
save_noreply("location");
which would be a possibility, indeed...
Beside that
the domain tables (location etc) get out of synch if one of
the SERs is down for a moment, because retransmission is only tried a
few times.
i don't see why this needs to be the case with db mode 2. when ser
comes back up, it updates its location table from database.
1:53 p.m.
Let me try to sort out the issues we are discussing here, so we at least can
see if we agree to the goals:
1. Reliability and scalability issues
-----------
Scenario: Tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of users require a
reliable and scalable infrastructure
Goal: Find a good reference scenario for building a reliable and scalable
infrastructure of ser servers.
Problems: Everybody tries to solve this their own way and most keep their
solutions as a secret because it is a competitive advantage not to tell
anybody.
**** I think that your solution to #1 will dominate the discussions on the
issues below. Using RADIUS (and possibly LDAP back-ends) for everything but
usrloc is one solution that seems to be Juha's scenario (and mine). Andreas
uses mysql for subscriber info as well. Do you have one server center with
load balancing or geographically-distributed server centers? It will
influence your needs.
So, let's sort out our scenarios before we discuss what is the "best "
solution.
2. Usrloc replication across standalone ser servers.
------------
Scenario: Independent servers with independent databases run either with
some sort of load balancing or DNS SRV.
Goal: Make sure that all ser servers have updated usrloc information, so
each can handle any SIP message.
Problems: Distribute REGISTER messages to all servers; Make sure that server
unavailability does not corrupt the usrloc DB state
*** We all have this issue. It is my understanding that t_replicate: a)
uses SIP messages b) uses a best-effort algorithm (haven't looked at the
code...) c) can be used between several servers, but when you introduce a
new server, you need to change each server's ser.cfg
My suggestion for a simple solution based on the discussion so far: Extend
t_replicate with a guaranteed mode of replication. mysql can be used as a
queue with replication states (or even a text-file for that sake). Whether
SIP messages are used or TCP/IP-based FIFO is really based on an estimation
of network traffic.
Result: The least work and the code is an integrated part of ser.
3. Network-based provisioning of new users, aliases, etc
------------
Scenario: One server need to be provisioned from a web server or process
running on a remote server
Goal: Allow ser to receive TCP/IP based provisioning messages
Problems: ser's FIFO does not have a TCP/IP interface
*** I think this is an extension to ser that would benefit many people. I
also believe that a provisioning interface should be SOAP based due to share
number of projects that probably will use the interface for provisioning.
4. Replication of user database, aliases, etc across standalone ser servers.
------------
Scenario: Independent servers with independent databases run either with
some sort of load balancing or DNS SRV and subscriber information is stored
in sql tables
Goal: Make sure that each server recognizes all subscribers, aliases, etc
Problems: Make sure that all servers have updated database tables
*** RADIUS/LDAP solutions do not need to do this as RADIUS servers, LDAP
replication etc take care of both reliability and scalability. However, I
think ser support more than one RADIUS server. A defined secondary server
would be useful.
With SQL-based scenarios however, I see three natural solutions:
a) Rely on sql-based replication. Without checking this, I believe ser
always write such FIFO commands directly to the DB, so sql-level replication
should work
b) Extend ser's FIFO to also have a replication configuration, i.e. in
ser.cfg you define the peer servers that need replication. If the extension
to t_replicate uses TCP/IP based FIFO, the code can be re-used.
c) Implement provisioning systems so that each ser server is updated through
the TCP/IP-based FIFO
To be honest, I'm not sure if I see the value of such an effort (b). Also,
as usage of sql for storage is just one of several modes, it is probably not
right to integrate such code into FIFO. a) and b) are more natural choices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
My summary and conclusions:
- I believe a TCP/IP-based FIFO (#3) is a core feature that we all can agree
would be useful and natural to implement;
- I don't know the details of how t_replicate functions, but Juha's opinion
is that it takes care of all the issues Andreas points out except one: The
amount of traffic SIP messages create. I will not interfere with this
discussion, of course, if t_replicate can handle unavailable servers etc,
that would be great. Anyway, a reliable replication of usrloc is essential
to a carrier-grade architecture
- After this discussion, I now believe we should keep provisioning (#3) and
the two types of replication (#2 and #4) separate also in implementation.
Well, my attempt at sorting out issues. Any succes, you think? ;-)
g-)
Andreas Granig wrote:
Juha Heinanen wrote:
I think mode 1 (Write-Through) should be used because the SER could
start up while some of the contacts aren't flushed to DB yet.
However, how would you set up your database connections here? Using a
common usrloc database for all hosts (-> single point of failure)?
This is the main point. _How_ do you share the contacts as reliable as
possible so that a host can go down for a while without getting out of
synch regarding the contacts?
Andy
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
you can have any number of proxies participating
in replication.
What method are you thinking of? t_replicate() reports
ERROR: t_newtran: transaction already in process 0x4054d5ec
if you call it twice, like
t_replicate("foohost", "5060");
t_replicate("barhost", "5060");
Or do you mean something like
forward_tcp("foohost", "5060");
forward_tcp("barhost", "5060");
and on the receiving hosts
if(/* register from replicating host */)
save_noreply("location");
which would be a possibility, indeed...
Beside
that the domain tables (location etc) get out of synch if
one of > the SERs is
down for a moment, because retransmission is
only tried a > few times.
i don't see why this needs to be the case with db mode 2. when ser
comes back up, it updates its location table from database. 
7:17 p.m.
Hi all!
Well, maybe I don't know what I am talking about, I just saw now this
message, don't know the entire discussion, so anyway, here it goes.
I am working on implementing 3GPP's IMS using ser and by doing this I am
implementing the 3GPP AAA scenarios, which, as I understood, will evolve
into IETF's "Diameter SIP authentication" (now is a Draft)
http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/idref/draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-sip-app/ .
Usrloc, although I use it locally is not anymore needed on a large
distributed scale because the AAA servers keep track of where the users
are registered and you can query them by standard request (Location
Information Request, User Authorization Request) to find out where to
forward messages.
1. more users, more servers. I think this should be the way to do it. I
never liked replication because it's kind of a too complicated solution
to work reliably.
I really think that the Diameter SIP auth will scale very well. Keep in
mind that it was designed to work in large mobile networks (3G, right?).
The network should be splitted into different functional sip proxies,
and in this case:
- interogating(finds where a user is/should be registered and forwards
the msg there)
- serving (actually services the user).
2.the replication problem has just moved from ser to the AAA server. But
the AAA server can be distributed so that each one will hold a limited
number of users, and a special AAA routing node can be used to route
requests toward the right AAA, which will respond to them. The AAA
server holding users could be a point of failure so maybe you will still
need to duplicate it's functionality but I think it's better to do a
replication just to ensure availability/fail-safety then to do it in
order to implement functionality.
At SIP level the distribution can be done using the interogating nodes,
first to redirect REGISTERs in load balancing if you want, to different
ser servers; and then the users can be found by interogating the AAA
servers which will track the users registration status.
3. the provisioning needs to be done in the AAA server only and all the
ser servers in the farm will obey.
I would suggest a "farm" architecture for ser, where all nodes are
configured the same and then you could dinamically introduce or take
back some such servers depending on load. All this would be done by
provisioning on the AAA.
4. Actually 1. responded to this. Load balancing is controled in
interogating sip-proxies and in AAA servers and not by "patches" like
DNS SRV (please don't flame me on this one ;-) ).
I, personaly consider that ser should be limited to what it does best -
SIP - and other components should do provisioning, replication and user
tracking. Anyway, user location is more of a AAA job, don't you think?
This is my personal opinion and I might be wrong :) . It is based on
the patterns of the 3GPP and diameter-sip-app. Although I have reached
the testing phase and it works, I have not yet performed large stress
tests to see how it works because my target is to build a working 3GPP
IMS, not a diameter-sip application as the draft says. So if there is
interest for this, please let me know.
Dragos
Greger V. Teigre wrote:
Let me try to sort out the issues we are discussing
here, so we at
least can see if we agree to the goals:
1. Reliability and scalability issues
-----------
Scenario: Tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of users require
a reliable and scalable infrastructure
Goal: Find a good reference scenario for building a reliable and
scalable infrastructure of ser servers.
Problems: Everybody tries to solve this their own way and most keep
their solutions as a secret because it is a competitive advantage not
to tell anybody.
**** I think that your solution to #1 will dominate the discussions on
the issues below. Using RADIUS (and possibly LDAP back-ends) for
everything but usrloc is one solution that seems to be Juha's scenario
(and mine). Andreas uses mysql for subscriber info as well. Do you
have one server center with load balancing or
geographically-distributed server centers? It will influence your needs.
So, let's sort out our scenarios before we discuss what is the "best "
solution.
2. Usrloc replication across standalone ser servers.
------------
Scenario: Independent servers with independent databases run either
with some sort of load balancing or DNS SRV.
Goal: Make sure that all ser servers have updated usrloc information,
so each can handle any SIP message.
Problems: Distribute REGISTER messages to all servers; Make sure that
server unavailability does not corrupt the usrloc DB state
*** We all have this issue. It is my understanding that t_replicate:
a) uses SIP messages b) uses a best-effort algorithm (haven't looked
at the code...) c) can be used between several servers, but when you
introduce a new server, you need to change each server's ser.cfg
My suggestion for a simple solution based on the discussion so far:
Extend t_replicate with a guaranteed mode of replication. mysql can
be used as a queue with replication states (or even a text-file for
that sake). Whether SIP messages are used or TCP/IP-based FIFO is
really based on an estimation of network traffic.
Result: The least work and the code is an integrated part of ser.
3. Network-based provisioning of new users, aliases, etc
------------
Scenario: One server need to be provisioned from a web server or
process running on a remote server
Goal: Allow ser to receive TCP/IP based provisioning messages
Problems: ser's FIFO does not have a TCP/IP interface
*** I think this is an extension to ser that would benefit many
people. I also believe that a provisioning interface should be SOAP
based due to share number of projects that probably will use the
interface for provisioning.
4. Replication of user database, aliases, etc across standalone ser
servers.
------------
Scenario: Independent servers with independent databases run either
with some sort of load balancing or DNS SRV and subscriber information
is stored in sql tables
Goal: Make sure that each server recognizes all subscribers, aliases, etc
Problems: Make sure that all servers have updated database tables
*** RADIUS/LDAP solutions do not need to do this as RADIUS servers,
LDAP replication etc take care of both reliability and scalability.
However, I think ser support more than one RADIUS server. A defined
secondary server would be useful.
With SQL-based scenarios however, I see three natural solutions:
a) Rely on sql-based replication. Without checking this, I believe ser
always write such FIFO commands directly to the DB, so sql-level
replication should work
b) Extend ser's FIFO to also have a replication configuration, i.e. in
ser.cfg you define the peer servers that need replication. If the
extension to t_replicate uses TCP/IP based FIFO, the code can be re-used.
c) Implement provisioning systems so that each ser server is updated
through the TCP/IP-based FIFO
To be honest, I'm not sure if I see the value of such an effort (b).
Also, as usage of sql for storage is just one of several modes, it is
probably not right to integrate such code into FIFO. a) and b) are
more natural choices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
My summary and conclusions:
- I believe a TCP/IP-based FIFO (#3) is a core feature that we all can
agree would be useful and natural to implement;
- I don't know the details of how t_replicate functions, but Juha's
opinion is that it takes care of all the issues Andreas points out
except one: The amount of traffic SIP messages create. I will not
interfere with this discussion, of course, if t_replicate can handle
unavailable servers etc, that would be great. Anyway, a reliable
replication of usrloc is essential to a carrier-grade architecture
- After this discussion, I now believe we should keep provisioning
(#3) and the two types of replication (#2 and #4) separate also in
implementation.
Well, my attempt at sorting out issues. Any succes, you think? ;-)
g-)
Andreas Granig wrote:
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dragos Vingarzan
FOKUS/MOBIS
Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 31
10589 Berlin
Germany
Phone +49 (0)30 - 3463 - 7242
Mobile +49 (0)162 - 153 - 0 - 154
eMail vingarzan(a)fokus.fraunhofer.de
Web www.fokus.fraunhofer.de
Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juha Heinanen wrote:
I think mode 1 (Write-Through) should be used because the SER could
start up while some of the contacts aren't flushed to DB yet.
However, how would you set up your database connections here? Using a
common usrloc database for all hosts (-> single point of failure)?
This is the main point. _How_ do you share the contacts as reliable as
possible so that a host can go down for a while without getting out of
synch regarding the contacts?
Andy
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers you can have any number of proxies participating
in replication.
What method are you thinking of? t_replicate() reports
ERROR: t_newtran: transaction already in process 0x4054d5ec
if you call it twice, like
t_replicate("foohost", "5060");
t_replicate("barhost", "5060");
Or do you mean something like
forward_tcp("foohost", "5060");
forward_tcp("barhost", "5060");
and on the receiving hosts
if(/* register from replicating host */)
save_noreply("location");
which would be a possibility, indeed...
Beside
that the domain tables (location etc) get out of synch if
one of > the SERs is
down for a moment, because retransmission is
only tried a > few times.
i don't see why this needs to be the case with db mode 2. when ser
comes back up, it updates its location table from database. 
28 Jan
28 Jan
11:08 a.m.
Hi Dragos!
4. Actually 1. responded to this. Load balancing is controled in
interogating sip-proxies and in AAA servers and not by "patches" like
DNS SRV (please don't flame me on this one ;-) ).
How should a SIP client detect and choose one of the SIP-proxies without
using SRV?
regards,
klaus
12:38 p.m.
Hi Klaus,
If you refer to origination messages, then by doing a UAR
(User-Authorization-Request/Answer)for the originating user to the AAA
server. This will offer a way to ballance user registrations between
serving sers.
If you refer to termination messages, by doing a LIR
(Location-Information-Request/Answer) for the terminating user to the
AAA server. This will find where the destination users are located.
UA->interog.ser->serv.ser->inter.ser->serv.ser->UA
UAR^ ^LIR
| |
+----> AAA server <---+
If you refer to forwarding to new networks or entering the home network,
you are right, SRV should be used. Sorry, I have not made it clear
enough - I was talking about load balancing and stuff JUST inside the
home network. So finding an interogating node, when no AAA server for
that domain could be contacted, remains the same. But it should be more
comfortable, because interogating nodes are fully stateless and should
work very fast.
Dragos
Klaus Darilion wrote:
Hi Dragos!
--
-----------------------------------------
Dragos Vingarzan
FOKUS/MOBIS
Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 31
10589 Berlin
Germany
Phone +49 (0)30 - 3463 - 7242
Mobile +49 (0)162 - 153 - 0154
eMail vingarzan(a)fokus.fraunhofer.de
Web www.fokus.fraunhofer.de
Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.
-------------------------------------------------------
4. Actually 1. responded to this. Load balancing is controled in
interogating sip-proxies and in AAA servers and not by "patches" like
DNS SRV (please don't flame me on this one ;-) ).
How should a SIP client detect and choose one of the SIP-proxies
without using SRV?
regards,
klaus
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
1:40 p.m.
Dragos,
I completely agree with you. When building architectures for scalability
and redundancy, the correct match of technologies will often solve many of
your problems. And it does make sense to store as much subscriber
information back-end as possible and let proven and standardized(?) systems
handle replication etc.
In my summary of issues I tried to separate the various issues from
eachother without going as far as you do. Dependent on where you come from,
various combinations will look appealing.
I have followed Diameter from a distance for a while, and while it does
seem to take hold in the mobile world, I haven't seen many non-mobile
implementations (it may be my limited perspective...). Most legacy subcriber
databases have a RADIUS interface, but rarely Diameter. In fact, I know that
Siemens have implemented a Mobile RADIUS with location-awareness in RADIUS.
I think that is an example of the (still) appeal of RADIUS.
I would love to have Diameter capabilities, but deploying Diameter in my
organization is not really feasible at this point. Hence, we try to do as
much as possible with Juha's RADIUS modules. And here is the point, I
think: One thing is what we would like to have, another thing is the context
we work in and thus what we have. I have RADIUS and do all provisioning in
an LDAP back-end, other people use mysql also for the subscriber database
(which BTW is simple as serweb has been developed and it works).
The fact that you (at Fraunhofer) spend time on Diameter and SIP is only
a confirmation of how "cutting-edge" such an approach is. (Well, with legacy
systems, things do not have to be very cutting-edge to be very far away from
implementation...) Secondly, Diameter is the successor of RADIUS, which is a
very "simple" technology compared to Diameter. Just as with our xmlrpc vs
soap discussion, you gain complexity when you get functionality and for
installation without the need for a certain functionality will only get
complexity; and complexity = $$$.
And do I think keeping location is a natural function of AAA? Hm,
traditionally subscriber databases kept all the static information about the
subscriber and the subscriber's services. Location was application
specific. In the mobile world, location is key to all services, so HLR (Home
Location Registers) had location as a natural part of its functionality. For
old/traditional dial-up services, location was more an attribute of the AAA
request, so that authorization could be determined based on when and where
the subscriber tried to get access. Location keeps getting more and more
important in TCP/IP based services as well, so one may (successfully) argue
that location is a part of the AAA domain. However, where do you stop? Is
the capabilities of your end-user device also information that should be in
the AAA domain? You need to know these capabilities in order to provide
quality services...
One inherent problem of using AAA for dynamic data is that back-end
technologies that are very well adapted to AAA like LDAP (made for search
speed) have a real problem with frequent writes. Of course, if you use
Oracle or some big SQL server as a back-end, you have solved that problem,
but you cannot utilize from LDAP capabilities...
Enough of this ranting... What I'm trying to say is that we need that
"piece-meal" approach to scalability and redundancy: What can we do with
existing installations today that gives us what we need and still leads us
in the right direction?
So, in order to better understand where we should be going, I would love
to look at what you are doing 3GPP IMS. ;-) If you have some more
information, why don't you post a link?
g-)
Dragos Vingarzan wrote:
Hi all!
Well, maybe I don't know what I am talking about, I just saw now this
message, don't know the entire discussion, so anyway, here it goes.
I am working on implementing 3GPP's IMS using ser and by doing this I
am implementing the 3GPP AAA scenarios, which, as I understood, will
evolve into IETF's "Diameter SIP authentication" (now is a Draft)
http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/idref/draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-sip-app/ .
Usrloc, although I use it locally is not anymore needed on a large
distributed scale because the AAA servers keep track of where the
users are registered and you can query them by standard request
(Location Information Request, User Authorization Request) to find
out where to forward messages.
1. more users, more servers. I think this should be the way to do it.
I never liked replication because it's kind of a too complicated
solution to work reliably.
I really think that the Diameter SIP auth will scale very well. Keep
in mind that it was designed to work in large mobile networks (3G,
right?). The network should be splitted into different functional sip
proxies, and in this case:
- interogating(finds where a user is/should be registered and forwards
the msg there)
- serving (actually services the user).
2.the replication problem has just moved from ser to the AAA server.
But the AAA server can be distributed so that each one will hold a
limited number of users, and a special AAA routing node can be used
to route requests toward the right AAA, which will respond to them.
The AAA server holding users could be a point of failure so maybe you
will still need to duplicate it's functionality but I think it's
better to do a replication just to ensure availability/fail-safety
then to do it in order to implement functionality.
At SIP level the distribution can be done using the interogating
nodes, first to redirect REGISTERs in load balancing if you want, to
different ser servers; and then the users can be found by
interogating the AAA servers which will track the users registration
status.
3. the provisioning needs to be done in the AAA server only and all
the ser servers in the farm will obey.
I would suggest a "farm" architecture for ser, where all nodes are
configured the same and then you could dinamically introduce or take
back some such servers depending on load. All this would be done by
provisioning on the AAA.
4. Actually 1. responded to this. Load balancing is controled in
interogating sip-proxies and in AAA servers and not by "patches" like
DNS SRV (please don't flame me on this one ;-) ).
I, personaly consider that ser should be limited to what it does best
- SIP - and other components should do provisioning, replication and
user tracking. Anyway, user location is more of a AAA job, don't you
think? This is my personal opinion and I might be wrong :) . It is
based on the patterns of the 3GPP and diameter-sip-app. Although I
have reached the testing phase and it works, I have not yet performed
large stress tests to see how it works because my target is to build
a working 3GPP IMS, not a diameter-sip application as the draft says.
So if there is interest for this, please let me know.
Dragos
Greger V. Teigre wrote:
> Let me try to sort out the issues we are discussing here, so we at
> least can see if we agree to the goals:
>
> 1. Reliability and scalability issues
> -----------
> Scenario: Tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of users require
> a reliable and scalable infrastructure
> Goal: Find a good reference scenario for building a reliable and
> scalable infrastructure of ser servers.
> Problems: Everybody tries to solve this their own way and most keep
> their solutions as a secret because it is a competitive advantage not
> to tell anybody.
>
> **** I think that your solution to #1 will dominate the discussions
> on the issues below. Using RADIUS (and possibly LDAP back-ends) for
> everything but usrloc is one solution that seems to be Juha's
> scenario (and mine). Andreas uses mysql for subscriber info as well.
> Do you have one server center with load balancing or
> geographically-distributed server centers? It will influence your
> needs. So, let's sort out our scenarios before we discuss what is
> the "best " solution.
>
> 2. Usrloc replication across standalone ser servers.
> ------------
> Scenario: Independent servers with independent databases run either
> with some sort of load balancing or DNS SRV.
> Goal: Make sure that all ser servers have updated usrloc information,
> so each can handle any SIP message.
> Problems: Distribute REGISTER messages to all servers; Make sure that
> server unavailability does not corrupt the usrloc DB state
>
> *** We all have this issue. It is my understanding that t_replicate:
> a) uses SIP messages b) uses a best-effort algorithm (haven't looked
> at the code...) c) can be used between several servers, but when you
> introduce a new server, you need to change each server's ser.cfg
> My suggestion for a simple solution based on the discussion so far:
> Extend t_replicate with a guaranteed mode of replication. mysql can
> be used as a queue with replication states (or even a text-file for
> that sake). Whether SIP messages are used or TCP/IP-based FIFO is
> really based on an estimation of network traffic.
> Result: The least work and the code is an integrated part of ser.
>
> 3. Network-based provisioning of new users, aliases, etc
> ------------
> Scenario: One server need to be provisioned from a web server or
> process running on a remote server
> Goal: Allow ser to receive TCP/IP based provisioning messages
> Problems: ser's FIFO does not have a TCP/IP interface
>
> *** I think this is an extension to ser that would benefit many
> people. I also believe that a provisioning interface should be SOAP
> based due to share number of projects that probably will use the
> interface for provisioning.
>
> 4. Replication of user database, aliases, etc across standalone ser
> servers.
> ------------
> Scenario: Independent servers with independent databases run either
> with some sort of load balancing or DNS SRV and subscriber
> information is stored in sql tables
> Goal: Make sure that each server recognizes all subscribers,
> aliases, etc Problems: Make sure that all servers have updated
> database tables *** RADIUS/LDAP solutions do not need to do this as
> RADIUS servers,
> LDAP replication etc take care of both reliability and scalability.
> However, I think ser support more than one RADIUS server. A defined
> secondary server would be useful.
> With SQL-based scenarios however, I see three natural solutions:
> a) Rely on sql-based replication. Without checking this, I believe
> ser always write such FIFO commands directly to the DB, so sql-level
> replication should work
> b) Extend ser's FIFO to also have a replication configuration, i.e.
> in ser.cfg you define the peer servers that need replication. If the
> extension to t_replicate uses TCP/IP based FIFO, the code can be
> re-used. c) Implement provisioning systems so that each ser server
> is updated through the TCP/IP-based FIFO
>
> To be honest, I'm not sure if I see the value of such an effort (b).
> Also, as usage of sql for storage is just one of several modes, it is
> probably not right to integrate such code into FIFO. a) and b) are
> more natural choices.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> My summary and conclusions:
> - I believe a TCP/IP-based FIFO (#3) is a core feature that we all
> can agree would be useful and natural to implement;
> - I don't know the details of how t_replicate functions, but Juha's
> opinion is that it takes care of all the issues Andreas points out
> except one: The amount of traffic SIP messages create. I will not
> interfere with this discussion, of course, if t_replicate can handle
> unavailable servers etc, that would be great. Anyway, a reliable
> replication of usrloc is essential to a carrier-grade architecture
> - After this discussion, I now believe we should keep provisioning
> (#3) and the two types of replication (#2 and #4) separate also in
> implementation.
>
> Well, my attempt at sorting out issues. Any succes, you think? ;-)
>
> g-)
>
> Andreas Granig wrote:
>
>> Juha Heinanen wrote:
>>
>>> you can have any number of proxies participating in replication.
>>
>>
>> What method are you thinking of? t_replicate() reports
>>
>> ERROR: t_newtran: transaction already in process 0x4054d5ec
>>
>> if you call it twice, like
>>
>> t_replicate("foohost", "5060");
>> t_replicate("barhost", "5060");
>>
>> Or do you mean something like
>>
>> forward_tcp("foohost", "5060");
>> forward_tcp("barhost", "5060");
>>
>> and on the receiving hosts
>>
>> if(/* register from replicating host */)
>> save_noreply("location");
>>
>> which would be a possibility, indeed...
>>
>>> > Beside that the domain tables (location etc) get out of synch if
>>> one of > the SERs is down for a moment, because retransmission is
>>> only tried a > few times.
>>>
>>> i don't see why this needs to be the case with db mode 2. when ser
>>> comes back up, it updates its location table from database.
>>
>>
>> I think mode 1 (Write-Through) should be used because the SER could
>> start up while some of the contacts aren't flushed to DB yet.
>>
>> However, how would you set up your database connections here? Using
>> a common usrloc database for all hosts (-> single point of failure)?
>> This is the main point. _How_ do you share the contacts as reliable
>> as possible so that a host can go down for a while without getting
>> out of synch regarding the contacts?
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Serusers mailing list
>> serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
10:12 p.m.
Hi all!
Fortunately, for now, I don't have to deal with an already deployed
network on wich to adapt in order to cope with growth. I was in that
situation but with other technologies and it sure wasn't "funny". You
will have to use proven technologies, that would not let you down or
have hidden bugs.
I will continue my reply inlined...
Greger V. Teigre wrote:
I have followed Diameter from a distance for a
while, and while it
does seem to take hold in the mobile world, I haven't seen many
non-mobile implementations (it may be my limited perspective...). Most
legacy subcriber databases have a RADIUS interface, but rarely
Diameter. In fact, I know that Siemens have implemented a Mobile
RADIUS with location-awareness in RADIUS. I think that is an example
of the (still) appeal of RADIUS.
I would love to have Diameter capabilities, but deploying Diameter
in my organization is not really feasible at this point. Hence, we try
to do as much as possible with Juha's RADIUS modules. And here is
the point, I think: One thing is what we would like to have, another
thing is the context we work in and thus what we have. I have RADIUS
and do all provisioning in an LDAP back-end, other people use mysql
also for the subscriber database (which BTW is simple as serweb has
been developed and it works).
Diameter deployment will take a while: you will need tested diameter
support in ser and then a diameter server that will run your application
logic. The good news is that maybe you could do it gradually, with
radius/diameter conversion tools. But the fact that you will still have
to implement all your application logic remains and it is a hard task.
And of course you will need something of industrial strength...
The fact that you (at Fraunhofer) spend time on
Diameter and SIP is
only a confirmation of how "cutting-edge" such an approach is. (Well,
with legacy systems, things do not have to be very cutting-edge to be
very far away from implementation...) Secondly, Diameter is the
successor of RADIUS, which is a very "simple" technology compared to
Diameter. Just as with our xmlrpc vs soap discussion, you gain
complexity when you get functionality and for installation without the
need for a certain functionality will only get complexity; and
complexity = $$$.
What I am working on is/was part of my Diploma Thesis. I was
exploring new grounds, while trying to ensure a high performance also. A
lot of this technologies don't have final specifications and tend to
change very fast so that a lot of the time I just rewrite obsolete code.
The 3GPP's IMS is focusing on moving the mobile phones world to the IP
infrastructure. This is not a "must" for providers of UMTS but more of a
good thing to have for the future and for integration with the IP world.
Indeed the complexity is high as you try to get functionality. But
sometimes, trying to get an old technologies to perform better that it
was designed to, is a bigger effort that adopting a new one. I am sure
that none of you will use this very soon, or maybe this will just remain
in the IMS world. But you should know that it exists and maybe then,
building big "patching" solutions will not look so feasible.
From my experience into this and into trying to make it work, I would
say that it would take some effort for any provider to jump into it,
because there are so many features that are "provider independent".
And do I think keeping location is a natural
function of AAA? Hm,
traditionally subscriber databases kept all the static information
about the subscriber and the subscriber's services. Location was
application specific. In the mobile world, location is key to all
services, so HLR (Home Location Registers) had location as a natural
part of its functionality. For old/traditional dial-up services,
location was more an attribute of the AAA request, so that
authorization could be determined based on when and where the
subscriber tried to get access. Location keeps getting more and more
important in TCP/IP based services as well, so one may (successfully)
argue that location is a part of the AAA domain. However, where do
you stop? Is the capabilities of your end-user device also
information that should be in the AAA domain? You need to know these
capabilities in order to provide quality services...
In IMS capabilites are stored on the AAA server and message routing
is also based on that.
Enough of this ranting... What I'm trying to
say is that we need
that "piece-meal" approach to scalability and redundancy: What can we
do with existing installations today that gives us what we need and
still leads us in the right direction?
So, in order to better understand where we should be going, I would
love to look at what you are doing 3GPP IMS. ;-) If you have some more
information, why don't you post a link?
If you would like to know more about it I would recommend to read
this draft:
http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/idref/draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-sip-app/
It will make you an ideea of how the architecture looks like,
although it is more about diameter communication. But the architecture
is described very well here.
For 3GPP's IMS see http://www.3gpp.org/specs/numbering.htm into
Technical Specifaction 29.228 and 29.229.
Even if the diameter thing looks a little out of reach for now, the
suggested architecture of the sip servers could be usefull into
destressing things a little bit.
Regards,
--
-----------------------------------------
Dragos Vingarzan
FOKUS/MOBIS
Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 31
10589 Berlin
Germany
Phone +49 (0)30 - 3463 - 7242
Mobile +49 (0)162 - 153 - 0154
eMail vingarzan(a)fokus.fraunhofer.de
Web www.fokus.fraunhofer.de
Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.
-------------------------------------------------------
7:13 a.m.
Greger V. Teigre writes:
*** We all have this issue. It is my understanding
that t_replicate: a)
uses SIP messages b) uses a best-effort algorithm (haven't looked at the
code...) c) can be used between several servers, but when you introduce a
new server, you need to change each server's ser.cfg
no you don't if you keep your server ip addresses in database and have a
fifo command to reload them each time there is a change. i have started
coding this, but is not ready yet.
My suggestion for a simple solution based on the
discussion so far: Extend
t_replicate with a guaranteed mode of replication.
this indeed is a good thing to do.
3. Network-based provisioning of new users, aliases,
etc
------------
Scenario: One server need to be provisioned from a web server or process
running on a remote server
Goal: Allow ser to receive TCP/IP based provisioning messages
Problems: ser's FIFO does not have a TCP/IP interface
*** I think this is an extension to ser that would benefit many people. I
also believe that a provisioning interface should be SOAP based due
to share number of projects that probably will use the interface for
provisioning.
somebody mentioned that since ser fifo now has unix domain support, it
would not be difficult to extend it to tcp support. that may be true
atleast for the person who did unix domain support and thus knows the
code. i guess fifo tcp support already is on iptel's long to-do list.
what comes to soap, i would prefer a solution that has an abstraction
layer and backends for both soap and xmlrpc, since not everyone of fond
of microsoft solutions.
-- juha
10:59 a.m.
Juha Heinanen wrote:
I think that using soap is a good idea and it DOES NOT necessarily mean that
you have to be fond of microsoft.
Successfuly deployed many nice things using SER & open source soap, I don't
think it is slow or complicated.
Arek,
*** I think
this is an extension to ser that would benefit
many people. I
also believe that a provisioning interface should
be SOAP based due
to share number of projects that probably will use the interface for
provisioning.
what comes to soap, i would prefer a solution that has an abstraction
layer and backends for both soap and xmlrpc, since not everyone of fond
of microsoft solutions.
-- juha
1:44 p.m.
Juha Heinanen wrote:
Who is code maintainer for this part??
Greger V. Teigre writes:
Excellent! Will this code be available through CVS in the near future?
*** We all have this issue. It is my
understanding that
t_replicate: a) uses SIP messages b) uses a best-effort algorithm
(haven't looked at the code...) c) can be used between several
servers, but when you introduce a new server, you need to change
each server's ser.cfg
no you don't if you keep your server ip addresses in database and
have a fifo command to reload them each time there is a change. i
have started coding this, but is not ready yet. My suggestion
for a simple solution based on the discussion so far:
Extend t_replicate with a guaranteed mode of replication.
this indeed is a good thing to do. somebody mentioned that since ser fifo now has unix
domain support, it
would not be difficult to extend it to tcp support. that may be true
atleast for the person who did unix domain support and thus knows the
code. i guess fifo tcp support already is on iptel's long to-do list.
what comes to soap, i would prefer a solution that has an abstraction
layer and backends for both soap and xmlrpc, since not everyone of
fond of microsoft solutions.
I don't see soap as a microsoft solution, it's a bit bigger than that... ;-)
but I agree with you. It depends on your needs.
g-)
7:02 a.m.
Andreas Granig writes:
Or do you mean something like
forward_tcp("foohost", "5060");
forward_tcp("barhost", "5060");
and on the receiving hosts
if(/* register from replicating host */)
save_noreply("location");
which would be a possibility, indeed...
this is what i meant.
I think mode 1 (Write-Through) should be used because
the SER could
start up while some of the contacts aren't flushed to DB yet.
yes, my error. i didn't remember which mode number was write-through.
However, how would you set up your database
connections here? Using a
common usrloc database for all hosts (-> single point of failure)? This
is the main point. _How_ do you share the contacts as reliable as
possible so that a host can go down for a while without getting out of
synch regarding the contacts?
that is database replication problem. i'm pretty sure that mysql ab has
a solution for it if it is not included in the freely available 4.1
release.
-- juha
10:55 a.m.
Andreas Granig wrote:
Juha Heinanen wrote:
Have you tried append_branch?
append_branch("uri1");
append_branch("uri2");
t_replicate("barhost", "5060");
maybe this works. (never tried it myself)
regards,
klaus
you can have any number of proxies participating
in replication.
What method are you thinking of? t_replicate() reports
ERROR: t_newtran: transaction already in process 0x4054d5ec
if you call it twice, like
t_replicate("foohost", "5060");
t_replicate("barhost", "5060");
Or do you mean something like
forward_tcp("foohost", "5060");
forward_tcp("barhost", "5060");
and on the receiving hosts
if(/* register from replicating host */)
save_noreply("location");
10:44 a.m.
Do you plan to send the xmlrpc messages for each REGISTER or will you do
some buffering and send several location update in one message? I think
this will cause a lott of traffic between the ser's.
Do you know the diploma thesis of Nils?
(http://www.ohlmeier.de/tuberlin.html you will find it at the bottom of
the page) There are several ideas how to distribute the location data.
regards,
klaus
Andreas Granig wrote:
Juha Heinanen wrote:
i don't know about andrea's efforts, but
i used xmlrpc for registering
ser users' phone numbers with tier-1 enum database in finland. finnish
authorities had specified xmlrpc interface for that purpose.
In short, I plan to write an xmlrpc-based provisioning system for
distributing FIFO commands. The main focus is sharing registration
contacts and aliases among different SERs (all the data that can't be
replicated on a lower (database) layer due to memory caching).
There's an external application on each SER host receiving contacts from
a SER module via a local socket. These contacts are wrapped into xmlrpc
(in fact the contact is converted into a FIFO command which is wrapped
into xmlrpc) and are distributed to the same application on other SER
hosts, which writes them into the SER FIFO. If an application is
unreachable or reports an error, the distributed FIFO command is queued.
The application can receive arbitrary FIFO commands, and a flag
indicates if the command should be redistributed to the other hosts.
Andy
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
25 Jan
25 Jan
12:48 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] What do you have against SOAP? (was Carrier-grade framework for SER)
Greger and everyone else that is interested,
Please consider before ruling out SOAP, that SOAP has more off the shelf
libraries to support it then XMLRPC. Please consider the folks that use
Microsoft platforms for their back end processing and databases, and
keep in mind the following:
Yukon is just around the corner. It has SOAP services built in, as well
as the ability to call SOAP services directly from T-SQL.
Also we implement a carrier grade platform using SER, which is in use by
a number of VoIP providers here, with the following extensions:
1) An extra module which allows for RADIUS URI translation, extended AVP
lookup, via extra string parameter which lets you identify what AVP
query you wish to do, and an extra flag in the registration database
"FOREIGN" registration, to identify a contact which has been replicated
from another SER server.
2) A service which speaks SOAP to he outside world, (it's own http
server on non-standard port) to allow an external interface to the SER
FIFO interface. It use is for external Voicemail MWI Notifies, and to
send refresh, reboot and report notify messages to SIP devices.
3) A generic provisioning server for almost any SIP device, which can be
provisioned via TFTP, HTTP, or HTTPS. This server dynamically builds
configuration files in memory on the fly for any device based on RE
pattern matching of the filename, mapped to SQL statement, which returns
device parameters.
With just these above three things, we can implement a full carrier
grade system, with full automated device provisioning, all CLASS 5
features, such as unlimited level hunting, recursive call forwarding
(even when each device in the forwarding has a different dial plan) and
just about anything else you can think of. To accomplish this, we depend
on SOAP as a method of component communication because we consider any
platform, including Microsoft and the ".NET framework" as things we need
to interact with.
If your goal is to provide a framework for integrating with other
platforms, SOAP bring a lot more flexibility to the game, and make it
more compatible with more platforms.
Remember, this is just an opinion, however it needed to be expressed,
just so you know what other folks are doing with SER.
--Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Greger V. Teigre
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 11:29 PM
To: Juha Heinanen
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Carrier-grade framework for SER
Juha,
Yes, I completely agree with you. However, I don't need to read the spec
and
far from understand it before I use it... ;-) So I did start to look at
SOAP and have very good experiences, both in terms of usability and
scalability.
But, I don't have strong opinions, if the people who are going to
use
the interface are all against SOAP, XMLRPC is the right choice.
The xmlrpc-provisioning work you have done, can it be coordinated with
Andreas' effort?
g-)
Juha Heinanen wrote:
Greger V. Teigre writes:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
As I indicated in an earlier email, I would be
interested in taking
part in a joint effort to further develop ser's high-availability
and scalability (HAS). I would probably have to do some development
anyway, and I would prefer to see such support in the public domain.
In Nov/Dec I called for responses on a SOAP-based provisioning
interface, but heard nothing,
so here is an overlap of interests.
greger,
we have done some work on xmlprc based provisioning and it looks
promising. xmlrpc spec is three pages long and even i can understand
it. soap spec, on the other hand, is far too thick and goes way above
my head.
-- juha 
29 Jul
29 Jul
12:05 p.m.
New subject: SOAP/XML-RPC experience, etc. (was RE: [Serusers] What do you have against SOAP? (was Carrier-grade framework for SER)
I'm digging through old archives and I am just wondering how people feel about 18
month later about the discussion about SOAP, XMl-RPC, etc. Any feedback would be
appreciated -- what you think about it now and more importantly what's your
experience
if any. All in all, many are asking for a roadmap and input to that is most
welcome.
-jiri
I have an opinion on this topic too but didn't want to begin egoistically with mine
:-)
At 12:48 25/01/2005, David R. Kompel wrote:
Greger and everyone else that is interested,
Please consider before ruling out SOAP, that SOAP has more off the shelf
libraries to support it then XMLRPC. Please consider the folks that use
Microsoft platforms for their back end processing and databases, and
keep in mind the following:
Yukon is just around the corner. It has SOAP services built in, as well
as the ability to call SOAP services directly from T-SQL.
Also we implement a carrier grade platform using SER, which is in use by
a number of VoIP providers here, with the following extensions:
1) An extra module which allows for RADIUS URI translation, extended AVP
lookup, via extra string parameter which lets you identify what AVP
query you wish to do, and an extra flag in the registration database
"FOREIGN" registration, to identify a contact which has been replicated
from another SER server.
2) A service which speaks SOAP to he outside world, (it's own http
server on non-standard port) to allow an external interface to the SER
FIFO interface. It use is for external Voicemail MWI Notifies, and to
send refresh, reboot and report notify messages to SIP devices.
3) A generic provisioning server for almost any SIP device, which can be
provisioned via TFTP, HTTP, or HTTPS. This server dynamically builds
configuration files in memory on the fly for any device based on RE
pattern matching of the filename, mapped to SQL statement, which returns
device parameters.
With just these above three things, we can implement a full carrier
grade system, with full automated device provisioning, all CLASS 5
features, such as unlimited level hunting, recursive call forwarding
(even when each device in the forwarding has a different dial plan) and
just about anything else you can think of. To accomplish this, we depend
on SOAP as a method of component communication because we consider any
platform, including Microsoft and the ".NET framework" as things we need
to interact with.
If your goal is to provide a framework for integrating with other
platforms, SOAP bring a lot more flexibility to the game, and make it
more compatible with more platforms.
Remember, this is just an opinion, however it needed to be expressed,
just so you know what other folks are doing with SER.
--Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Greger V. Teigre
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 11:29 PM
To: Juha Heinanen
Cc: serusers(a)iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Carrier-grade framework for SER
Juha,
Yes, I completely agree with you. However, I don't need to read the spec
and
far from understand it before I use it... ;-) So I did start to look at
SOAP and have very good experiences, both in terms of usability and
scalability.
But, I don't have strong opinions, if the people who are going to
use
the interface are all against SOAP, XMLRPC is the right choice.
The xmlrpc-provisioning work you have done, can it be coordinated with
Andreas' effort?
g-)
Juha Heinanen wrote:
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Greger V. Teigre writes:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers As I indicated in an earlier email, I would be
interested in taking
part in a joint effort to further develop ser's high-availability
and scalability (HAS). I would probably have to do some development
anyway, and I would prefer to see such support in the public domain.
In Nov/Dec I called for responses on a SOAP-based provisioning
interface, but heard nothing,
so here is an overlap of interests.
greger,
we have done some work on xmlprc based provisioning and it looks
promising. xmlrpc spec is three pages long and even i can understand
it. soap spec, on the other hand, is far too thick and goes way above
my head.
-- juha 
3:58 p.m.
New subject: SOAP/XML-RPC experience, etc. (was RE: [Serusers] What do you have against SOAP? (was Carrier-grade framework for SER)
Well, I think that integration around Web services in inevitable. And I
think not about writing-just-another-SER-module, but some global policy
towards Web Services.
If not SER globally, then at least some of SER user installations out
there will have more or less proprietary SOAP speaking modules. Because
all of us folks need sometimes to connect to billing systems, ERPs, Web
portals and so on. And some of us already do it with Web services, but
they just don't have time to speak about it ;-)
Our intention should be to spare all those people the need to develop
their own Web services (SOAP) modules and do a consistent review of SER
policy towards Web Services:
a) I think that we should at LEAST introduce SOAP for accounting. In
emails sometime ago I proposed to build into SER a set of Web Services
compliant to IPDR standard. Then we could at least facilitate simple
requests for list of calls per user/domain/group, together with relevant
call times. I have nothing against other billing information exchange
standards of course, but I still think that IPDR is sexy.
b) Next we could build something around dialog module. Web methods to
report ongoing calls, to terminate a call, to insert voice prompt into
an ongoing call.. Options are endless here.
c) subscriber management - I think it is self descriptive
d) device provisioning, as I think Dave mentioned it - it is another
good idea
e) ParlayX Web Services v.2.0 - for building all of those sexy call
services and advanced call routing, reaching further that current dialog
module capabilities
What is more, having SOAP (and Web Services in general) in mind, the
next generation Web interface is just around the corner. SER with
built-in Web Services, together with nice interface build in PHP/XSLT,
OpenLaszlo or whatever-is-the-sexiest-now Web technology, could easily
complement or even compete with Asterisk.
--
Regards,
Arek Bekiersz
Jiri Kuthan wrote:
I'm digging through old archives and I am just
wondering how people feel about 18
month later about the discussion about SOAP, XMl-RPC, etc. Any feedback would be
appreciated -- what you think about it now and more importantly what's your
experience
if any. All in all, many are asking for a roadmap and input to that is most
welcome.
-jiri
I have an opinion on this topic too but didn't want to begin egoistically with mine
:-)
6:28 p.m.
New subject: SOAP/XML-RPC experience, etc. (was RE: [Serusers] What do you have against SOAP? (was Carrier-grade framework for SER)
To some extent I agree, I am not sure it is most beneficial to embedd this logic directly
in SER. -jiri
At 14:58 29/07/2006, Arek Bekiersz wrote:
Well, I think that integration around Web services in
inevitable. And I think not about writing-just-another-SER-module, but some global policy
towards Web Services.
If not SER globally, then at least some of SER user installations out there will have more
or less proprietary SOAP speaking modules. Because all of us folks need sometimes to
connect to billing systems, ERPs, Web portals and so on. And some of us already do it with
Web services, but they just don't have time to speak about it ;-)
Our intention should be to spare all those people the need to develop their own Web
services (SOAP) modules and do a consistent review of SER policy towards Web Services:
a) I think that we should at LEAST introduce SOAP for accounting. In emails sometime ago I
proposed to build into SER a set of Web Services compliant to IPDR standard. Then we could
at least facilitate simple requests for list of calls per user/domain/group, together with
relevant call times. I have nothing against other billing information exchange standards
of course, but I still think that IPDR is sexy.
b) Next we could build something around dialog module. Web methods to report ongoing
calls, to terminate a call, to insert voice prompt into an ongoing call.. Options are
endless here.
c) subscriber management - I think it is self descriptive
d) device provisioning, as I think Dave mentioned it - it is another good idea
e) ParlayX Web Services v.2.0 - for building all of those sexy call services and advanced
call routing, reaching further that current dialog module capabilities
What is more, having SOAP (and Web Services in general) in mind, the next generation Web
interface is just around the corner. SER with built-in Web Services, together with nice
interface build in PHP/XSLT, OpenLaszlo or whatever-is-the-sexiest-now Web technology,
could easily complement or even compete with Asterisk.
--
Regards,
Arek Bekiersz
Jiri Kuthan wrote:
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
I'm digging through old archives and I am just
wondering how people feel about 18
month later about the discussion about SOAP, XMl-RPC, etc. Any feedback would be
appreciated -- what you think about it now and more importantly what's your
experience
if any. All in all, many are asking for a roadmap and input to that is most
welcome.
-jiri
I have an opinion on this topic too but didn't want to begin egoistically with mine
:-)
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers 
3:59 p.m.
New subject: SOAP/XML-RPC experience, etc. (was RE: [Serusers] What do you have against SOAP? (was Carrier-grade framework for SER)
I'll weigh in.
I'd prefer SOAP. I know you're gung-ho on XML-RPC, and I can understand that
its simplicity would make it useful in a lot of ways, but for the most part,
the XML-RPC libraries I've seen for Java, C++, and PHP have all been a bit of
a mess (Marquee/Redstone isn't TOO bad, but it's still rather poorly
documented overall). SOAP, while being more complex, is a bit more powerful as
well, allowing me to define the data types I'm using and accepting, and how to
use them, as well as allowing a great deal more flexibility when it comes to
specifying the characters sets I'm looking for and the like.
On the flip side, SOAP is still a growing standard. Some people will be turned
off by the fact that it is almost certain to change as time goes on, but for
any of us who got in on the ground floor of the Java spec, or PHP, or half a
dozen other languages out there that change their APIs on a semi-regular
basis, a spec or protocol that changes is hardly daunting.
We've used SOAP for a lot of things to connect to various services, and most
of the telco services we interconnect with use SOAP and not XML-RPC. That
would mean we'd end up having to do things two ways for all our apps and
server side code, but if it has to be done, it has to be done.
It reall boils down to why do you like XML-RPC and what do you see its
strengths are in terms of SER? If there's good reason to use one over another,
even given the limitations, then I don't see a problem with it. As long as
it's all well-documented with example code and such, it should be just fine.
Again, it boils down to the fact that good documentation goes a long way
toward making even the most intractable projects into workable solutions.
N.
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 11:05:24 +0200, Jiri Kuthan wrote
I'm digging through old archives and I am just
wondering how people
feel about 18 month later about the discussion about SOAP, XMl-RPC,
etc. Any feedback would be appreciated -- what you think about it
now and more importantly what's your experience if any. All in all,
many are asking for a roadmap and input to that is most welcome.
-jiri
I have an opinion on this topic too but didn't want to begin
egoistically with mine :-)
At 12:48 25/01/2005, David R. Kompel wrote:
Greger and everyone else that is interested,
Please consider before ruling out SOAP, that SOAP has more off the shelf
libraries to support it then XMLRPC. Please consider the folks that use
Microsoft platforms for their back end processing and databases, and
keep in mind the following:
Yukon is just around the corner. It has SOAP services built in, as well
as the ability to call SOAP services directly from T-SQL.
Also we implement a carrier grade platform using SER, which is in use by
a number of VoIP providers here, with the following extensions:
1) An extra module which allows for RADIUS URI translation, extended AVP
lookup, via extra string parameter which lets you identify what AVP
query you wish to do, and an extra flag in the registration database
"FOREIGN" registration, to identify a contact which has been replicated
from another SER server.
2) A service which speaks SOAP to he outside world, (it's own http
server on non-standard port) to allow an external interface to the SER
FIFO interface. It use is for external Voicemail MWI Notifies, and to
send refresh, reboot and report notify messages to SIP devices.
3) A generic provisioning server for almost any SIP device, which can be
provisioned via TFTP, HTTP, or HTTPS. This server dynamically builds
configuration files in memory on the fly for any device based on RE
pattern matching of the filename, mapped to SQL statement, which returns
device parameters.
With just these above three things, we can implement a full carrier
grade system, with full automated device provisioning, all CLASS 5
features, such as unlimited level hunting, recursive call forwarding
(even when each device in the forwarding has a different dial plan) and
just about anything else you can think of. To accomplish this, we depend
on SOAP as a method of component communication because we consider any
platform, including Microsoft and the ".NET framework" as things we need
to interact with.
If your goal is to provide a framework for integrating with other
platforms, SOAP bring a lot more flexibility to the game, and make it
more compatible with more platforms.
Remember, this is just an opinion, however it needed to be expressed,
just so you know what other folks are doing with SER.
--Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Greger V. Teigre
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 11:29 PM
To: Juha Heinanen
Cc: serusers(a)iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Carrier-grade framework for SER
Juha,
Yes, I completely agree with you. However, I don't need to read the spec
and
far from understand it before I use it... ;-) So I did start to look at
SOAP and have very good experiences, both in terms of usability and
scalability.
But, I don't have strong opinions, if the people who are going to
use
the interface are all against SOAP, XMLRPC is the right choice.
The xmlrpc-provisioning work you have done, can it be coordinated with
Andreas' effort?
g-)
Juha Heinanen wrote:
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers Greger V. Teigre writes:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers As I indicated in an earlier email, I would be
interested in taking
part in a joint effort to further develop ser's high-availability
and scalability (HAS). I would probably have to do some development
anyway, and I would prefer to see such support in the public domain.
In Nov/Dec I called for responses on a SOAP-based provisioning
interface, but heard nothing,
so here is an overlap of interests.
greger,
we have done some work on xmlprc based provisioning and it looks
promising. xmlrpc spec is three pages long and even i can understand
it. soap spec, on the other hand, is far too thick and goes way above
my head.
-- juha 
4 p.m.
New subject: SOAP/XML-RPC experience, etc. (was RE: [Serusers] What do you have against SOAP? (was Carrier-grade framework for SER)
I'll weigh in.
I'd prefer SOAP. I know you're gung-ho on XML-RPC, and I can understand that
its simplicity would make it useful in a lot of ways, but for the most part,
the XML-RPC libraries I've seen for Java, C++, and PHP have all been a bit of
a mess (Marquee/Redstone isn't TOO bad, but it's still rather poorly
documented overall). SOAP, while being more complex, is a bit more powerful as
well, allowing me to define the data types I'm using and accepting, and how to
use them, as well as allowing a great deal more flexibility when it comes to
specifying the characters sets I'm looking for and the like.
On the flip side, SOAP is still a growing standard. Some people will be turned
off by the fact that it is almost certain to change as time goes on, but for
any of us who got in on the ground floor of the Java spec, or PHP, or half a
dozen other languages out there that change their APIs on a semi-regular
basis, a spec or protocol that changes is hardly daunting.
We've used SOAP for a lot of things to connect to various services, and most
of the telco services we interconnect with use SOAP and not XML-RPC. That
would mean we'd end up having to do things two ways for all our apps and
server side code, but if it has to be done, it has to be done.
It reall boils down to why do you like XML-RPC and what do you see its
strengths are in terms of SER? If there's good reason to use one over another,
even given the limitations, then I don't see a problem with it. As long as
it's all well-documented with example code and such, it should be just fine.
Again, it boils down to the fact that good documentation goes a long way
toward making even the most intractable projects into workable solutions.
N.
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 11:05:24 +0200, Jiri Kuthan wrote
I'm digging through old archives and I am just
wondering how people
feel about 18 month later about the discussion about SOAP, XMl-RPC,
etc. Any feedback would be appreciated -- what you think about it
now and more importantly what's your experience if any. All in all,
many are asking for a roadmap and input to that is most welcome.
-jiri
I have an opinion on this topic too but didn't want to begin
egoistically with mine :-)
At 12:48 25/01/2005, David R. Kompel wrote:
Greger and everyone else that is interested,
Please consider before ruling out SOAP, that SOAP has more off the shelf
libraries to support it then XMLRPC. Please consider the folks that use
Microsoft platforms for their back end processing and databases, and
keep in mind the following:
Yukon is just around the corner. It has SOAP services built in, as well
as the ability to call SOAP services directly from T-SQL.
Also we implement a carrier grade platform using SER, which is in use by
a number of VoIP providers here, with the following extensions:
1) An extra module which allows for RADIUS URI translation, extended AVP
lookup, via extra string parameter which lets you identify what AVP
query you wish to do, and an extra flag in the registration database
"FOREIGN" registration, to identify a contact which has been replicated
from another SER server.
2) A service which speaks SOAP to he outside world, (it's own http
server on non-standard port) to allow an external interface to the SER
FIFO interface. It use is for external Voicemail MWI Notifies, and to
send refresh, reboot and report notify messages to SIP devices.
3) A generic provisioning server for almost any SIP device, which can be
provisioned via TFTP, HTTP, or HTTPS. This server dynamically builds
configuration files in memory on the fly for any device based on RE
pattern matching of the filename, mapped to SQL statement, which returns
device parameters.
With just these above three things, we can implement a full carrier
grade system, with full automated device provisioning, all CLASS 5
features, such as unlimited level hunting, recursive call forwarding
(even when each device in the forwarding has a different dial plan) and
just about anything else you can think of. To accomplish this, we depend
on SOAP as a method of component communication because we consider any
platform, including Microsoft and the ".NET framework" as things we need
to interact with.
If your goal is to provide a framework for integrating with other
platforms, SOAP bring a lot more flexibility to the game, and make it
more compatible with more platforms.
Remember, this is just an opinion, however it needed to be expressed,
just so you know what other folks are doing with SER.
--Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Greger V. Teigre
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 11:29 PM
To: Juha Heinanen
Cc: serusers(a)iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Carrier-grade framework for SER
Juha,
Yes, I completely agree with you. However, I don't need to read the spec
and
far from understand it before I use it... ;-) So I did start to look at
SOAP and have very good experiences, both in terms of usability and
scalability.
But, I don't have strong opinions, if the people who are going to
use
the interface are all against SOAP, XMLRPC is the right choice.
The xmlrpc-provisioning work you have done, can it be coordinated with
Andreas' effort?
g-)
Juha Heinanen wrote:
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers Greger V. Teigre writes:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers As I indicated in an earlier email, I would be
interested in taking
part in a joint effort to further develop ser's high-availability
and scalability (HAS). I would probably have to do some development
anyway, and I would prefer to see such support in the public domain.
In Nov/Dec I called for responses on a SOAP-based provisioning
interface, but heard nothing,
so here is an overlap of interests.
greger,
we have done some work on xmlprc based provisioning and it looks
promising. xmlrpc spec is three pages long and even i can understand
it. soap spec, on the other hand, is far too thick and goes way above
my head.
-- juha 
30 Jul
30 Jul
11:38 a.m.
New subject: SOAP/XML-RPC experience, etc. (was RE: [Serusers] What do you have against SOAP? (was Carrier-grade framework for SER)
Just by looking at it without too much practical experience, I would say
xmlrpc module is *nice*, but no more: to me it seems to complex for easy
tasks (like usrloc operations or some counter inspecting) and too simple for
complex tasks (SOAP indeed offers much more flexibility).
On the other hand, the module API extension for RPC seems a *very* good idea
and leaves room for other protocol front ends (sercmd just as an example);
maybe some work to facilitate/'standardise' implementing such front ends
might be welcomed (like forking a number of children dedicated for the job
or binding on some communication channels aso, which would have to be done
every time). I think this is what should be made more popular and
concentrate our attention on.
Although I'm a tad against web services (I haven't seen yet any big
deployment using them, so, I am skeptical), so much more against using them
in SER, I would not oppose the idea of having an official SOAP module: if
for some small guy with 600+ subscribers it makes life easier, why not?
However, I haven't seen any post with such an offer...
Since we now have modules which allow use of SER as a pocket calculator, how
would you reject an enterprise *looking* like extension? :-)
WL.
On 7/29/06, Jiri Kuthan <jiri(a)iptel.org> wrote:
I'm digging through old archives and I am just wondering how people feel
about 18
month later about the discussion about SOAP, XMl-RPC, etc. Any feedback
would be
appreciated -- what you think about it now and more importantly what's
your experience
if any. All in all, many are asking for a roadmap and input to that is
most
welcome.
-jiri
I have an opinion on this topic too but didn't want to begin egoistically
with mine :-)
At 12:48 25/01/2005, David R. Kompel wrote:
Greger and everyone else that is interested,
Please consider before ruling out SOAP, that SOAP has more off the shelf
libraries to support it then XMLRPC. Please consider the folks that use
Microsoft platforms for their back end processing and databases, and
keep in mind the following:
Yukon is just around the corner. It has SOAP services built in, as well
as the ability to call SOAP services directly from T-SQL.
Also we implement a carrier grade platform using SER, which is in use by
a number of VoIP providers here, with the following extensions:
1) An extra module which allows for RADIUS URI translation, extended AVP
lookup, via extra string parameter which lets you identify what AVP
query you wish to do, and an extra flag in the registration database
"FOREIGN" registration, to identify a contact which has been replicated
from another SER server.
2) A service which speaks SOAP to he outside world, (it's own http
server on non-standard port) to allow an external interface to the SER
FIFO interface. It use is for external Voicemail MWI Notifies, and to
send refresh, reboot and report notify messages to SIP devices.
3) A generic provisioning server for almost any SIP device, which can be
provisioned via TFTP, HTTP, or HTTPS. This server dynamically builds
configuration files in memory on the fly for any device based on RE
pattern matching of the filename, mapped to SQL statement, which returns
device parameters.
With just these above three things, we can implement a full carrier
grade system, with full automated device provisioning, all CLASS 5
features, such as unlimited level hunting, recursive call forwarding
(even when each device in the forwarding has a different dial plan) and
just about anything else you can think of. To accomplish this, we depend
on SOAP as a method of component communication because we consider any
platform, including Microsoft and the ".NET framework" as things we need
to interact with.
If your goal is to provide a framework for integrating with other
platforms, SOAP bring a lot more flexibility to the game, and make it
more compatible with more platforms.
Remember, this is just an opinion, however it needed to be expressed,
just so you know what other folks are doing with SER.
--Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Greger V. Teigre
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 11:29 PM
To: Juha Heinanen
Cc: serusers(a)iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Carrier-grade framework for SER
Juha,
Yes, I completely agree with you. However, I don't need to read the spec
and
far from understand it before I use it... ;-) So I did start to look at
SOAP and have very good experiences, both in terms of usability and
scalability.
But, I don't have strong opinions, if the people who are going to
use
the interface are all against SOAP, XMLRPC is the right choice.
The xmlrpc-provisioning work you have done, can it be coordinated with
Andreas' effort?
g-)
Juha Heinanen wrote:
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/ <http://iptel.org/%7Ejiri/>
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Greger V. Teigre writes:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers As I indicated in an earlier email, I would be
interested in taking
part in a joint effort to further develop ser's high-availability
and scalability (HAS). I would probably have to do some development
anyway, and I would prefer to see such support in the public domain.
In Nov/Dec I called for responses on a SOAP-based provisioning
interface, but heard nothing,
so here is an overlap of interests.
greger,
we have done some work on xmlprc based provisioning and it looks
promising. xmlrpc spec is three pages long and even i can understand
it. soap spec, on the other hand, is far too thick and goes way above
my head.
-- juha
10:09 p.m.
New subject: SOAP/XML-RPC experience, etc. (was RE: [Serusers] What do you have against SOAP? (was Carrier-grade framework for SER)
Thank you for your feedback.
I think it is to large extent matter of use-cases too. I mean where we have encountered
SOAP so far
was merely data provisioning, which was just about turning SOAP into SER's database,
something that
didn't necessiate direct support of SOAP inside SER.
I agree though that for those, who think they have a use-case, the current interface
allows for
a SOAP module easily.
-jiri
At 10:38 30/07/2006, Weiter Leiter wrote:
Just by looking at it without too much practical
experience, I would say xmlrpc module is *nice*, but no more: to me it seems to complex
for easy tasks (like usrloc operations or some counter inspecting) and too simple for
complex tasks (SOAP indeed offers much more flexibility).
On the other hand, the module API extension for RPC seems a *very* good idea and leaves
room for other protocol front ends (sercmd just as an example); maybe some work to
facilitate/'standardise' implementing such front ends might be welcomed (like
forking a number of children dedicated for the job or binding on some communication
channels aso, which would have to be done every time). I think this is what should be made
more popular and concentrate our attention on.
Although I'm a tad against web services (I haven't seen yet any big deployment
using them, so, I am skeptical), so much more against using them in SER, I would not
oppose the idea of having an official SOAP module: if for some small guy with 600+
subscribers it makes life easier, why not? However, I haven't seen any post with such
an offer...
Since we now have modules which allow use of SER as a pocket calculator, how would you
reject an enterprise *looking* like extension? :-)
WL.
On 7/29/06, Jiri Kuthan <<mailto:jiri@iptel.org>jiri@iptel.org> wrote:
I'm digging through old archives and I am just wondering how people feel about 18
month later about the discussion about SOAP, XMl-RPC, etc. Any feedback would be
appreciated -- what you think about it now and more importantly what's your experience
if any. All in all, many are asking for a roadmap and input to that is most
welcome.
-jiri
I have an opinion on this topic too but didn't want to begin egoistically with mine
:-)
At 12:48 25/01/2005, David R. Kompel wrote:
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Greger and everyone else that is interested,
Please consider before ruling out SOAP, that SOAP has more off the shelf
libraries to support it then XMLRPC. Please consider the folks that use
Microsoft platforms for their back end processing and databases, and
keep in mind the following:
Yukon is just around the corner. It has SOAP services built in, as well
as the ability to call SOAP services directly from T-SQL.
Also we implement a carrier grade platform using SER, which is in use by
a number of VoIP providers here, with the following extensions:
1) An extra module which allows for RADIUS URI translation, extended AVP
lookup, via extra string parameter which lets you identify what AVP
query you wish to do, and an extra flag in the registration database
"FOREIGN" registration, to identify a contact which has been replicated
from another SER server.
2) A service which speaks SOAP to he outside world, (it's own http
server on non-standard port) to allow an external interface to the SER
FIFO interface. It use is for external Voicemail MWI Notifies, and to
send refresh, reboot and report notify messages to SIP devices.
3) A generic provisioning server for almost any SIP device, which can be
provisioned via TFTP, HTTP, or HTTPS. This server dynamically builds
configuration files in memory on the fly for any device based on RE
pattern matching of the filename, mapped to SQL statement, which returns
device parameters.
With just these above three things, we can implement a full carrier
grade system, with full automated device provisioning, all CLASS 5
features, such as unlimited level hunting, recursive call forwarding
(even when each device in the forwarding has a different dial plan) and
just about anything else you can think of. To accomplish this, we depend
on SOAP as a method of component communication because we consider any
platform, including Microsoft and the ".NET framework" as things we need
to interact with.
If your goal is to provide a framework for integrating with other
platforms, SOAP bring a lot more flexibility to the game, and make it
more compatible with more platforms.
Remember, this is just an opinion, however it needed to be expressed,
just so you know what other folks are doing with SER.
--Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: <mailto:serusers-bounces@iptel.org>serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:
serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Greger V. Teigre
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 11:29 PM
To: Juha Heinanen
Cc: <mailto:serusers@iptel.org>serusers@iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Carrier-grade framework for SER
Juha,
Yes, I completely agree with you. However, I don't need to read the spec
and
far from understand it before I use it... ;-) So I did start to look at
SOAP and have very good experiences, both in terms of usability and
scalability.
But, I don't have strong opinions, if the people who are going to
use
the interface are all against SOAP, XMLRPC is the right choice.
The xmlrpc-provisioning work you have done, can it be coordinated with
Andreas' effort?
g-)
Juha Heinanen wrote:
--
Jiri Kuthan <http://iptel.org/%7Ejiri/>http://iptel.org/~jiri/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
<mailto:Serusers@lists.iptel.org>Serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Greger V. Teigre writes:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
<mailto:Serusers@iptel.org> Serusers(a)iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
<mailto:Serusers@iptel.org> Serusers(a)iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers As I indicated in an earlier email, I would be
interested in taking
part in a joint effort to further develop ser's high-availability
and scalability (HAS). I would probably have to do some development
anyway, and I would prefer to see such support in the public domain.
In Nov/Dec I called for responses on a SOAP-based provisioning
interface, but heard nothing,
so here is an overlap of interests.
greger,
we have done some work on xmlprc based provisioning and it looks
promising. xmlrpc spec is three pages long and even i can understand
it. soap spec, on the other hand, is far too thick and goes way above
my head.
-- juha
22 Sep
22 Sep
10:44 a.m.
New subject: SOAP/XML-RPC experience, etc. (was RE: [Serusers] What do you have against SOAP? (was Carrier-grade framework for SER)
This thread is old, but I have kept it because I wanted to comment once
I had some time :-) Hope it's okay...
I think we need to look at what SER is and should be from an
architecture point of view.
Perspective 1, enterprise:
If SER is a standalone server, eg. an enterprise server, SER runs on a
box with mysql and a PSTN connection to some service provider. The
interfaces (in classic component thinking) needed are then the following:
a. Authentication to a corporate LDAP server (did I hear
ActiveDirectory) or in local mysql database
b. SIP data (user location, etc)
c. Accounting for checking the bill from the PSTN provider
d. Some simple management
e. Provisioning of accounts if they are found in mysql database
f. Change user settings
If you pull the accounts out of SER, a), e), and f) will probably be
handled by RADIUS or LDAP. b) SIP data and c) accounting will be fine
to do in SER's mysql, while d) management would probably be SNMP.
However, if accounts stay in SER's mysql database, you need a way to do
e) account provisioning and f) user settings. To be honest, SOAP and
XMLRPC both fit the bill, but there are more tools for SOAP. In fact, a
simple REST-based (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REST) http protocol
would be the easiest...
Perspective 2, carrier infrastructure:
If SER is part of an infrastructure, you have more requirements. SER
runs as a transaction server, you have multiple servers, you need to do
replication, and you may have accounts outside the SER database. You
also have provisioning systems, CRM, helpdesk tools, operations (OSS/BSS).
Looking at the interfaces described above, you will probably use RADIUS,
LDAP, or DIAMETER for accessing a user database and settings (that is
a), e), and f)). If your SIP infrastructure is standalone, you will
probably use SER's mysql with some kind of replication or usrloc-cl +
mysql cluster. In the first scenario, you don't need provisioning of
accounts, in the second you do.
Again, SOAP is probably the most likely to fit the bill as SOAP is more
common among OSS/BSS and CRM systems.
For c) accounting, you need to interface with either a real-time billing
system or periodically dump records readable for a billing system. For
real-time billing, DIAMETER is defined as the IMS/3GPP protocol of
choice. DIAMETER is based on the principles of RADIUS, an accounting
protocol implemented by many.
Then to IPDR as Arek suggests. IPDR is many things in one. It comes out
of the traditional Call Data Records, the file-based records used for
encoding calls. It has turned into a more complex set of transport
protocols, encoding (XML and the sucessor of CDRs: XDR), and shemas. I
haven't looked at the details, but it probably supports some form of
real-time billing (and thus authorization). In this respect it overlaps
with Open Settlement Protocol (OSP,
http://www.transnexus.com/White%20Papers/What%20is%20OSP.htm), which we
already have a module for. OSP comes out of TISPAN, the ISP's
standardization effort to adapt 3GPP IMS architecture to the ISP world.
However, I see IPDR more as a back-end accounting specification, than a
real-time settlement protocol.
Here I agree with Jiri, any real-time elements of IPDR is natural to
have as a SER module, however, the majority of the IPDR specification is
concerned about a step that is outside SER, namely acocunting start/stop
correlation, cleaning, and CDR/XDR/IPDR record generation. An IPDR
accounting module would be possible,and probably needed if one wants to
enable SER to send live IPDR data to an IPDR compliant CDR collector.
So, anyone, feel free to implement an IPDR module ;-)
Finally, to the d) interface, an SNMP module would probably be nice, but
not enough. The trend is towards actual service probing where the full
user experience is monitored (ex. automated calls measuring MOS). sipp
can used for this (not MOS score), but at least doing a full call.
In addition, you have another interface for carrier infrastructures:
g) Application servers (AS)
The standard interface for AS is SIP. ParlayX is used for this in the
old telco world, but AFAIK it has a SIP interface as well. I cannot see
why SER should implement ParlayX in a module?! Maybe you could
enlighten me, Arek?!
ParlayX is a big thing and if SER is to be extended towards more of an
application server, we need to think through what SER should be. SIP
CGI is interesting for tinkerers, as well as many applications. JSLEE
integration would be interesting, and of course ParlayX. (I here
intentionally mix up actual application capabilities with interfaces
towards applications servers...)
--------------------------------
My conclusions so far:
- The XMLRPC front-end is good for tinkering, but it does not really
match what is available of tools and connecting systems in the two
scenarios described above. A SOAP module, maybe even based on a
standard(!), would simplify provisioning and user account settings
- I feel an IPDR module could be a good addition to SER, as long as it
does not try to do something a SIP server is not meant to be
- SNMP would be a good addition
- I'm all for extending SER's capabilities as an application engine. But
I'm not sure yet in which direction it should go. I believe there is
way to open up creativity in SIP applications, ex. through combining SER
and SEMS into a platform for application development (it already is, but
it's not really well known...)
As for extending SER with all kinds of interface, why not? If somebody
has a use case and wants to develop a module, I think that is a good thing.
My 2 cents...
finally signing off...
g-)
Jiri Kuthan wrote:
Thank you for your feedback.
I think it is to large extent matter of use-cases too. I mean where we have encountered
SOAP so far
was merely data provisioning, which was just about turning SOAP into SER's database,
something that
didn't necessiate direct support of SOAP inside SER.
I agree though that for those, who think they have a use-case, the current interface
allows for
a SOAP module easily.
-jiri
At 10:38 30/07/2006, Weiter Leiter wrote:
Just by looking at it without too much practical
experience, I would say xmlrpc module is *nice*, but no more: to me it seems to complex
for easy tasks (like usrloc operations or some counter inspecting) and too simple for
complex tasks (SOAP indeed offers much more flexibility).
On the other hand, the module API extension for RPC seems a *very* good idea and leaves
room for other protocol front ends (sercmd just as an example); maybe some work to
facilitate/'standardise' implementing such front ends might be welcomed (like
forking a number of children dedicated for the job or binding on some communication
channels aso, which would have to be done every time). I think this is what should be made
more popular and concentrate our attention on.
Although I'm a tad against web services (I haven't seen yet any big deployment
using them, so, I am skeptical), so much more against using them in SER, I would not
oppose the idea of having an official SOAP module: if for some small guy with 600+
subscribers it makes life easier, why not? However, I haven't seen any post with such
an offer...
Since we now have modules which allow use of SER as a pocket calculator, how would you
reject an enterprise *looking* like extension? :-)
WL.
On 7/29/06, Jiri Kuthan <<mailto:jiri@iptel.org>jiri@iptel.org> wrote:
I'm digging through old archives and I am just wondering how people feel about 18
month later about the discussion about SOAP, XMl-RPC, etc. Any feedback would be
appreciated -- what you think about it now and more importantly what's your
experience
if any. All in all, many are asking for a roadmap and input to that is most
welcome.
-jiri
I have an opinion on this topic too but didn't want to begin egoistically with mine
:-)
At 12:48 25/01/2005, David R. Kompel wrote:
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Greger and everyone else that is interested,
Please consider before ruling out SOAP, that SOAP has more off the shelf
libraries to support it then XMLRPC. Please consider the folks that use
Microsoft platforms for their back end processing and databases, and
keep in mind the following:
Yukon is just around the corner. It has SOAP services built in, as well
as the ability to call SOAP services directly from T-SQL.
Also we implement a carrier grade platform using SER, which is in use by
a number of VoIP providers here, with the following extensions:
1) An extra module which allows for RADIUS URI translation, extended AVP
lookup, via extra string parameter which lets you identify what AVP
query you wish to do, and an extra flag in the registration database
"FOREIGN" registration, to identify a contact which has been replicated
from another SER server.
2) A service which speaks SOAP to he outside
world, (it's own http
server on non-standard port) to allow an external interface to the SER
FIFO interface. It use is for external Voicemail MWI Notifies, and to
send refresh, reboot and report notify messages to SIP devices.
3) A generic provisioning server for almost any SIP device, which can be
provisioned via TFTP, HTTP, or HTTPS. This server dynamically builds
configuration files in memory on the fly for any device based on RE
pattern matching of the filename, mapped to SQL statement, which returns
device parameters.
With just these above three things, we can implement a full carrier
grade system, with full automated device provisioning, all CLASS 5
features, such as unlimited level hunting, recursive call forwarding
(even when each device in the forwarding has a different dial plan) and
just about anything else you can think of. To accomplish this, we depend
on SOAP as a method of component communication because we consider any
platform, including Microsoft and the ".NET framework" as things we need
to interact with.
If your goal is to provide a framework for integrating with other
platforms, SOAP bring a lot more flexibility to the game, and make it
more compatible with more platforms.
Remember, this is just an opinion, however it needed to be expressed,
just so you know what other folks are doing with SER.
--Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: <mailto:serusers-bounces@iptel.org>serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:
serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Greger V. Teigre
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 11:29 PM
To: Juha Heinanen
Cc: <mailto:serusers@iptel.org>serusers@iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Carrier-grade framework for SER
Juha,
Yes, I completely agree with you. However, I don't need to read the spec
and
far from understand it before I use it... ;-) So I did start to look at
SOAP and have very good experiences, both in terms of usability and
scalability.
But, I don't have strong opinions, if the people who are going to
use
the interface are all against SOAP, XMLRPC is the right choice.
The xmlrpc-provisioning work you have done, can it be coordinated with
Andreas' effort?
g-)
Juha Heinanen wrote:
--
Jiri Kuthan <http://iptel.org/%7Ejiri/>http://iptel.org/~jiri/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
<mailto:Serusers@lists.iptel.org>Serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Greger V. Teigre writes:
> As I indicated in an earlier email, I would be interested in taking
> part in a joint effort to further develop ser's high-availability
> and scalability (HAS). I would probably have to do some development
> anyway, and I would prefer to see such support in the public domain.
> In Nov/Dec I called for responses on a SOAP-based provisioning
> interface, but heard nothing,
> so here is an overlap of interests.
>
greger,
we have done some work on xmlprc based provisioning and it looks
promising. xmlrpc spec is three pages long and even i can understand
it. soap spec, on the other hand, is far too thick and goes way above
my head.
-- juha
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
<mailto:Serusers@iptel.org> Serusers(a)iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
<mailto:Serusers@iptel.org> Serusers(a)iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
25 Sep
25 Sep
12:58 a.m.
New subject: SOAP/XML-RPC experience, etc. (was RE: [Serusers] What do you have against SOAP? (was Carrier-grade framework for SER)
Hello Greger, all,
Please find my answers inline:
----- Original Message -----
From: Greger V. Teigre
To: Jiri Kuthan
Cc: Weiter Leiter ; David R. Kompel ; serusers(a)iptel.org ; Arek Bekiersz
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: SOAP/XML-RPC experience, etc. (was RE: [Serusers] What do you
have against SOAP? (was Carrier-grade framework for SER)
Greger:
----------
This thread is old, but I have kept it because I wanted to comment once I
had some time :-) Hope it's okay...
Arek:
--------
No, it is not old. It is alive and kicking ;-)
I don't have much time, but also wanted to rejoin my favourite thread ;-)
So, in fact we at our company are in the middle of european IST project,
related to integration of business and technology, by various means related
to
workflow technologies and Web services. I invite
you to visit our Website at http://www.visp-project.org/
It just happened that VoIP services based on SER were chosen as first
proof-of-concept in VISP. Reason is that I was playing with Web services in
SER for a long
time, in production systems.
I'm working hardly now with workflow related technologies to finally
integrate VoIP services (and their technical workflows) with corporate
business workfows. I use Web services for this (SOAP/WSDL in particular)
and other sexy XML and workflow stuff.
Believe me, I couldn't have done what I have done without SOAP. I will keep
developing SOAP
related stuff for SER. First because I have to (for the project) and second
because I believe this is the best way to achieve seamless integration of
SER into corporate workflow based OSS systems. I will try to publish results
of that work, if possible.
Greger:
----------
I think we need to look at what SER is and should be from an architecture
point of view.
Perspective 1, enterprise:
If SER is a standalone server, eg. an enterprise server, SER runs on a box
with mysql and a PSTN connection to some service provider. The interfaces
(in classic component thinking) needed are then the following:
a. Authentication to a corporate LDAP server (did I hear ActiveDirectory) or
in local mysql database
b. SIP data (user location, etc)
c. Accounting for checking the bill from the PSTN provider
d. Some simple management
e. Provisioning of accounts if they are found in mysql database
f. Change user settings
If you pull the accounts out of SER, a), e), and f) will probably be handled
by RADIUS or LDAP. b) SIP data and c) accounting will be fine to do in
SER's mysql, while d) management would probably be SNMP.
However, if accounts stay in SER's mysql database, you need a way to do e)
account provisioning and f) user settings. To be honest, SOAP and XMLRPC
both fit the bill, but there are more tools for SOAP. In fact, a simple
REST-based (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REST) http protocol would be the
easiest...
Arek:
--------
For e) I use Web services based on SOAP. The end.
I will not try to convince anybody to use it, but as I said above - some
huge and really nice stuff would be virtually impossible without e) being
done in SOAP.
For the rest ( points a) and f) personally I stop to care anymore about
storage behind SER. It is hard to convince people to use directories (LDAP,
ActiveDirectory), for sake of the real value they bring in terms of
scalability, integration with the rest of enterprise intranet, friendliness
with XML, etc. I could not succeed on wider scale. Why? With the MySQL
clustering and redundancy people do exactly the same, reinventing things
that
have been done long ago. Reinventing the wheel, I mean.
I will keep developing for LDAP for my company use and try to publish that
as open
source later. I treat it as a task separate from Web service stuff. If there
is aybody who likes Ldap, we must provide him a possibility do use it with
SER directly.
Greger:
-----------
Perspective 2, carrier infrastructure:
If SER is part of an infrastructure, you have more requirements. SER runs
as a transaction server, you have multiple servers, you need to do
replication, and you may have accounts outside the SER database. You also
have provisioning systems, CRM, helpdesk tools, operations (OSS/BSS).
Looking at the interfaces described above, you will probably use RADIUS,
LDAP, or DIAMETER for accessing a user database and settings (that is a),
e), and f)). If your SIP infrastructure is standalone, you will probably use
SER's mysql with some kind of replication or usrloc-cl + mysql cluster. In
the first scenario, you don't need provisioning of accounts, in the second
you do.
Again, SOAP is probably the most likely to fit the bill as SOAP is more
common among OSS/BSS and CRM systems.
For c) accounting, you need to interface with either a real-time billing
system or periodically dump records readable for a billing system. For
real-time billing, DIAMETER is defined as the IMS/3GPP protocol of choice.
DIAMETER is based on the principles of RADIUS, an accounting protocol
implemented by many.
Then to IPDR as Arek suggests. IPDR is many things in one. It comes out of
the traditional Call Data Records, the file-based records used for encoding
calls. It has turned into a more complex set of transport protocols,
encoding (XML and the sucessor of CDRs: XDR), and schemas. I haven't looked
at the details, but it probably supports some form of real-time billing (and
thus authorization). In this respect it overlaps with Open Settlement
Protocol (OSP,
http://www.transnexus.com/White%20Papers/What%20is%20OSP.htm), which we
already have a module for. OSP comes out of TISPAN, the ISP's
standardization effort to adapt 3GPP IMS architecture to the ISP world.
However, I see IPDR more as a back-end accounting specification, than a
real-time settlement protocol.
Here I agree with Jiri, any real-time elements of IPDR is natural to have as
a SER module, however, the majority of the IPDR specification is concerned
about a step that is outside SER, namely acocunting start/stop correlation,
cleaning, and CDR/XDR/IPDR record generation. An IPDR accounting module
would be possible,and probably needed if one wants to enable SER to send
live IPDR data to an IPDR compliant CDR collector.
So, anyone, feel free to implement an IPDR module ;-)
Arek:
--------
Read, agreed.
Years are passing and we still do not have proper IPDR compliant CDR
collector. Every poor SER newbie have to write those little scripts to
extract those date, time and duration of his calls. Let's give them proper
CDR collector (IPDR recorder I mean) in real-time. The rest of IPDR,
non-real time stuff - keep inside module as well of throw away from SER - to
be decided.
Greger:
----------
Finally, to the d) interface, an SNMP module would probably be nice, but not
enough. The trend is towards actual service probing where the full user
experience is monitored (ex. automated calls measuring MOS). sipp can used
for this (not MOS score), but at least doing a full call.
In addition, you have another interface for carrier infrastructures:
g) Application servers (AS)
The standard interface for AS is SIP. ParlayX is used for this in the old
telco world, but AFAIK it has a SIP interface as well. I cannot see why SER
should implement ParlayX in a module?! Maybe you could enlighten me, Arek?!
Arek:
-------
And let me enlighten you, Greger ;-)
I've mentioned ParlayX Web services, to make it easy for Parlay and
Web service geeks to build custom application servers. I found it to be a
nice alternative, to have well documented standard interface from SER server
towards Application Server. I gave an example of SER receiving a SIP call to
a
number, then preparing and sending Web service message to Application
Server.
Upon receiving answer from Application server, SER servce could act on SIP
message. Action taken could be one like: forward
here, forward there or send him a '486 Busy Here'. I proposed that because I
had
a nice application server (with Web service interfaces) in my company and I
was looking for some standard way to talk to this server. I though that:
writing ParlayX Web service module for SER + modifying Application Server to
have ParlayX compliant interfaces would be a really sexy solution to build
applications like prepaid, prepaid with flat fee, multimedia services, etc.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Greger:
-----------
ParlayX is a big thing and if SER is to be extended towards more of an
application server, we need to think through what SER should be. SIP CGI is
interesting for tinkerers, as well as many applications. JSLEE integration
would be interesting, and of course ParlayX. (I here intentionally mix up
actual application capabilities with interfaces towards applications
servers...)
My conclusions so far:
- The XMLRPC front-end is good for tinkering, but it does not really match
what is available of tools and connecting systems in the two scenarios
described above. A SOAP module, maybe even based on a standard(!), would
simplify provisioning and user account settings
Arek:
-------
YES it would. I really could send you today an WSDL of such service running
at
our premises for 2 consequent years. I just cannot do it because of
confidentiality reasons. But will try to go with it to open source as soon
as
possible.
Greger:
-----------
- I feel an IPDR module could be a good addition to SER, as long as it does
not try to do something a SIP server is not meant to be
Arek:
-------
I Agree. Believe me, I don't want to make SER a washing machine with dryer
either. I just want to give people a compliant CDR recorder, to have a nice
basis to build their billing applications.
Greger:
-----------
- SNMP would be a good addition
Arek:
--------
Yes it would be. We are ready to work on MIB for that in our company (I got
a really good specialist for SNMP here, next to my desk).
Greger:
------------
- I'm all for extending SER's capabilities as an application engine. But I'm
not sure yet in which direction it should go. I believe there is way to
open up creativity in SIP applications, ex. through combining SER and SEMS
into a platform for application development (it already is, but it's not
really well known...)
As for extending SER with all kinds of interface, why not? If somebody has a
use case and wants to develop a module, I think that is a good thing.
Arek:
-------
Again, agree. I don't want SER to be washing machine and foot massager in
one. But if something is needed, there is someone willing to provide and
everyone agrees - then it should be done
Greger:
------------
My 2 cents...
finally signing off...
g-)
Arek:
--------
My 2 PLN's
signing off too ;-)
--
Regards,
Arek Bekiersz
26 Sep
26 Sep
1:49 a.m.
New subject: SOAP/XML-RPC experience, etc. (was RE: [Serusers] What do you have against SOAP? (was Carrier-grade framework for SER)
...
At 23:58 24/09/2006, Arek Bekiersz wrote:
Believe me, I couldn't have done what I have done
without SOAP. I will keep developing SOAP
related stuff for SER. First because I have to (for the project) and second because I
believe this is the best way to achieve seamless integration of SER into corporate
workflow based OSS systems. I will try to publish results of that work, if possible.
Just became curious -- my favorite question, did you do it as a standalone piece of
software which "feeds" SER database, or as a part of SER? Is that the piece of
work
which is falling under your non-disclosable development?
...
Arek:
--------
Read, agreed.
Years are passing and we still do not have proper IPDR compliant CDR
collector. Every poor SER newbie have to write those little scripts to
extract those date, time and duration of his calls. Let's give them proper
CDR collector (IPDR recorder I mean) in real-time. The rest of IPDR,
non-real time stuff - keep inside module as well of throw away from SER - to
be decided.
what do you call "proper CDR collector"? (I intuitivelly guess I agree but
am not 100% sure we are speaking about the same).
Arek:
-------
And let me enlighten you, Greger ;-)
I've mentioned ParlayX Web services, to make it easy for Parlay and
Web service geeks to build custom application servers. I found it to be a
nice alternative, to have well documented standard interface from SER server
towards Application Server. I gave an example of SER receiving a SIP call to a
number, then preparing and sending Web service message to Application Server.
Upon receiving answer from Application server, SER servce could act on SIP message. Action
taken could be one like: forward
here, forward there or send him a '486 Busy Here'. I proposed that because I had
a nice application server (with Web service interfaces) in my company and I
was looking for some standard way to talk to this server. I though that:
writing ParlayX Web service module for SER + modifying Application Server to
have ParlayX compliant interfaces would be a really sexy solution to build
applications like prepaid, prepaid with flat fee, multimedia services, etc.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I am not sure -- some ideas have grown too big for a successful birth and parlay
may be one of those, but that's of course my own guess. (Hope I don't sound
discouraging, I'm just wondering what people think about that opinion.)
Arek:
-------
YES it would. I really could send you today an WSDL of such service running at
our premises for 2 consequent years. I just cannot do it because of
confidentiality reasons. But will try to go with it to open source as soon as
possible.
Greger:
-----------
- I feel an IPDR module could be a good addition to SER, as long as it does
not try to do something a SIP server is not meant to be
Arek:
-------
I Agree. Believe me, I don't want to make SER a washing machine with dryer
either. I just want to give people a compliant CDR recorder, to have a nice
basis to build their billing applications.
Greger:
-----------
- SNMP would be a good addition
Arek:
--------
Yes it would be. We are ready to work on MIB for that in our company (I got
a really good specialist for SNMP here, next to my desk).
Just my 2 cents -- if people are interested in my feedback, the way I would
build it is an "agent" which gathers the data from SER using existing interface
and exports it to the world using SNMP. (Using your vocabulary, that's generally
my favorite approach to avoid embedded washing machines in SER :-))
Other curiosity question: is this something we are discussing within the roadmap
debate, or do people have some running code to share?
-jiri
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
11:42 a.m.
New subject: SOAP/XML-RPC experience, etc. (was RE: [Serusers] What do you have against SOAP? (was Carrier-grade framework for SER)
Hi Jiri,
Please see inline:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jiri Kuthan" <jiri(a)iptel.org>
To: "Arek Bekiersz" <sip(a)perceval.net>et>; "Greger V. Teigre"
<greger(a)teigre.com>
Cc: "Serusers" <serusers(a)iptel.org>rg>; "David R. Kompel"
<drk(a)drkngs.net>et>;
"Weiter Leiter" <bp4mls(a)googlemail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: SOAP/XML-RPC experience, etc. (was RE: [Serusers] What do you
have against SOAP? (was Carrier-grade framework for SER)
Arek:
Well, it depends. I will say straight: I'm still supporting the idea of Web
service IPDR inteface towards the acc module, or a new module. On every
request for IPDR data they would do query in SER's native acc dbase, find
matching INVITE-BYE pairs, calculate duration, disconnecting party etc. and
return the IPDR data in web service response.
Advantage: No need to have separate dbase for CDR, storing complete call
information (time of start, end & duration), as everything is calculated
on-the-fly, per web service request basis.
Disadvantage: Possible slowliness or freezing of SER module, when there are
tens of thousands of entries in SER acc db.
It might be combined with dialog module, to show calls in-progress as well
(establishing, ringing, diverting). It is all all as described in IPDR VoIP
profile (see callProgressState in
www.ipdr.org/service_specs/VoIP/VoIP3.1-A.0.2.pdf).
But I'm not sure anymore. Maybe it is realy better to keep it outside, have
separate IPDR db and just run a cron job to update it every minute or two? I
do it like that now, by the way. To be discussed.
Arek:
Well,... I share the same opinion about some heavyweight ideas. But there
are people tinkering with Parlay, take Ericpol company, from my home city,
as an example: (http://www.ericpol.pl/www/en/).
Just became curious -- my favorite question, did you
do it as a standalone
piece of
software which "feeds" SER database, or as a part of SER? Is that the
piece of work
which is falling under your non-disclosable development?
Arek:
The answer is twofold:
a) outside of SER, a stand-alone application+web server that feeds SER dbase
(mysql and ldap) and remote Asterisks dbs.
b) partially inside of SER (some modifications + ldap module, that by the
way still exists in cvs exp. directory). I've begun moving it to latest
devel version some time ago, but lack of time...I keep the faith ;-)
For this 'non-disclosing stuff' I mean the SER-outside stuff.
If you wish, I can share with you WSDLs of these Web services and a paper
manual, on private email.
You could poke that material and see if it is of any help?
Anyway, I would love to move the 'outside stuff' inside of SER, to become
one or more new modules. Such module(s) would have built-in Web server.
Still thinking of gSoap with its small footprint...
(www.cs.fsu.edu/~engelen/soap.html).
Years are
passing and we still do not have proper IPDR compliant CDR
collector. Every poor SER newbie have to write those little scripts to
extract those date, time and duration of his calls. Let's give them proper
CDR collector (IPDR recorder I mean) in real-time. The rest of IPDR,
non-real time stuff - keep inside module as well of throw away from SER -
to
be decided.
what do you call "proper CDR collector"? (I intuitivelly guess I agree but
am not 100% sure we are speaking about the same). Arek:
-------
And let me enlighten you, Greger ;-)
I've mentioned ParlayX Web services, to make it easy for Parlay and
Web service geeks to build custom application servers. I found it to be a
nice alternative, to have well documented standard interface from SER
server
towards Application Server. I gave an example of SER receiving a SIP call
to a
number, then preparing and sending Web service message to Application
Server.
Upon receiving answer from Application server, SER servce could act on SIP
message. Action taken could be one like: forward
here, forward there or send him a '486 Busy Here'. I proposed that because
I had
a nice application server (with Web service interfaces) in my company and
I
was looking for some standard way to talk to this server. I though that:
writing ParlayX Web service module for SER + modifying Application Server
to
have ParlayX compliant interfaces would be a really sexy solution to build
applications like prepaid, prepaid with flat fee, multimedia services,
etc.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I am not sure -- some ideas have grown too big for a successful birth and
parlay
may be one of those, but that's of course my own guess. (Hope I don't
sound
discouraging, I'm just wondering what people think about that opinion.)
Arek:
Arek:
I'm generally supporting idea of extending SER itself, in form of modules.
It is for people, to make their installation easier.
You know - download, make, install and become ISP in one day, no questions
asked on mailing lists.
-------
YES it would. I really could send you today an WSDL of such service
running at
our premises for 2 consequent years. I just cannot do it because of
confidentiality reasons. But will try to go with it to open source as soon
as
possible.
Greger:
-----------
- I feel an IPDR module could be a good addition to SER, as long as it
does
not try to do something a SIP server is not meant to be
Arek:
-------
I Agree. Believe me, I don't want to make SER a washing machine with dryer
either. I just want to give people a compliant CDR recorder, to have a
nice
basis to build their billing applications.
Greger:
-----------
- SNMP would be a good addition
Arek:
--------
Yes it would be. We are ready to work on MIB for that in our company (I
got
a really good specialist for SNMP here, next to my desk).
Just my 2 cents -- if people are interested in my feedback, the way I
would
build it is an "agent" which gathers the data from SER using existing
interface
and exports it to the world using SNMP. (Using your vocabulary, that's
generally
my favorite approach to avoid embedded washing machines in SER :-)) From the other side we cannot put new washing machine
inside SER every other
day. Otherwise we would overload it with features so much,
that we would
have to remove the 'E' (Express) letter from SER name :-) All to be
discussed.
Other curiosity question: is this something we are discussing within the
roadmap
debate, or do people have some running code to share?
Arek:
I would say it is rather a roadmap discussion. Sorry for that - it was
Greger who began with this thread again ;-)))
--
Regards,
Arek Bekiersz
-jiri
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
27 Sep
27 Sep
11:17 a.m.
New subject: SOAP/XML-RPC experience, etc. (was RE: [Serusers] What do you have against SOAP? (was Carrier-grade framework for SER)
Just became
curious -- my favorite question, did you do it as a
standalone
piece of
software which "feeds" SER database, or as a part of SER? Is that the
piece of work
which is falling under your non-disclosable development?
Arek:
The answer is twofold:
a) outside of SER, a stand-alone application+web server that feeds SER
dbase
(mysql and ldap) and remote Asterisks dbs.
b) partially inside of SER (some modifications + ldap module, that by the
way still exists in cvs exp. directory). I've begun moving it to latest
devel version some time ago, but lack of time...I keep the faith ;-) what do you
call "proper CDR collector"? (I intuitivelly guess I
agree but
am not 100% sure we are speaking about the same).
Arek:
Well, it depends. I will say straight: I'm still supporting the idea
of Web
service IPDR inteface towards the acc module, or a new module. On every
request for IPDR data they would do query in SER's native acc dbase, find
matching INVITE-BYE pairs, calculate duration, disconnecting party
etc. and
return the IPDR data in web service response.
Advantage: No need to have separate dbase for CDR,
storing complete call
information (time of start, end & duration), as everything is calculated
on-the-fly, per web service request basis.
Disadvantage: Possible slowliness or freezing of SER module, when
there are
tens of thousands of entries in SER acc db.
Exactly.
It might be combined with dialog module, to show calls
in-progress as
well
(establishing, ringing, diverting). It is all all as described in IPDR
VoIP
profile (see callProgressState in
www.ipdr.org/service_specs/VoIP/VoIP3.1-A.0.2.pdf).
But I'm not sure anymore. Maybe it is realy better to keep it outside,
have
separate IPDR db and just run a cron job to update it every minute or
two? I
do it like that now, by the way. To be discussed.
An IPDR provider can easily be
built as a gsoap service (either running
under apache or standalone). An ipdr SER module can communicate with
the IPDR provider using soap.
Benefits:
- Your IPDR provider can real time do queries into one or more SER
accounting databases, locally or over a private management network
- You can do accounting to a mysql cluster from many SER instances
- You only need one IPDR provider for your SER installation
- You get the scalability you want for each SER server
- You can isolate the IPDR soap-based provider on a separate server (as
it has very different security and scalability requirements)
g-)
11:09 a.m.
New subject: SOAP/XML-RPC experience, etc. (was RE: [Serusers] What do you have against SOAP? (was Carrier-grade framework for SER)
Greger:
----------
This thread is old, but I have kept it because I wanted to comment once I
had some time :-) Hope it's okay...
Arek:
--------
No, it is not old. It is alive and kicking ;-)
:-) well, now it is...
I don't have much time, but also wanted to rejoin
my favourite thread ;-)
So, in fact we at our company are in the middle of european IST project,
related to integration of business and technology, by various means
related to
workflow technologies and Web services. I invite
you to visit our Website at http://www.visp-project.org/
Yes, I have also visited
it before. The project goals sounds good.
Enabling smaller providers to join forces and "operate as one" may help
them stay afloat. Hopefully, it also enables them to be more innovative
and compete better...?!
It just puzzles me how little info is available. I assume the
participants see the development as a strategic asset. Your
participation in the SER community has been mainly talking about it
(except on the LDAP module). If you come with code, the community
process would improve it and create some dynamics. A thread on serusers
does not bring us anywhere.
I realize that you have confidentiality requirements, it's just a
frustration to hear, but not see...
It just happened that VoIP services based on SER were
chosen as first
proof-of-concept in VISP. Reason is that I was playing with Web
services in SER for a long
time, in production systems.
I'm working hardly now with workflow related technologies to finally
integrate VoIP services (and their technical workflows) with corporate
business workfows. I use Web services for this (SOAP/WSDL in particular)
and other sexy XML and workflow stuff.
I hope you don't get lost in the
sexiness of all the web service
workflow stuff. ;-) KISS is a good principle.
Believe me, I couldn't have done what I have done without SOAP. I will
keep developing SOAP
related stuff for SER. First because I have to (for the project) and
second because I believe this is the best way to achieve seamless
integration of SER into corporate workflow based OSS systems. I will
try to publish results of that work, if possible.
Greger:
----------
I think we need to look at what SER is and should be from an architecture
point of view.
Perspective 1, enterprise:
If SER is a standalone server, eg. an enterprise server, SER runs on a
box
with mysql and a PSTN connection to some service provider. The interfaces
(in classic component thinking) needed are then the following:
a. Authentication to a corporate LDAP server (did I hear
ActiveDirectory) or
in local mysql database
b. SIP data (user location, etc)
c. Accounting for checking the bill from the PSTN provider
d. Some simple management
e. Provisioning of accounts if they are found in mysql database
f. Change user settings
If you pull the accounts out of SER, a), e), and f) will probably be
handled
by RADIUS or LDAP. b) SIP data and c) accounting will be fine to do in
SER's mysql, while d) management would probably be SNMP.
However, if accounts stay in SER's mysql database, you need a way to
do e)
account provisioning and f) user settings. To be honest, SOAP and XMLRPC
both fit the bill, but there are more tools for SOAP. In fact, a simple
REST-based (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REST) http protocol would be the
easiest...
Arek:
--------
For e) I use Web services based on SOAP. The end.
I will not try to convince anybody to use it, but as I said above - some
huge and really nice stuff would be virtually impossible without e) being
done in SOAP.
In 0.10.x you can easily add SOAP as a front-end to the new management
interface.
For the rest ( points a) and f) personally I stop to
care anymore about
storage behind SER. It is hard to convince people to use directories
(LDAP,
ActiveDirectory), for sake of the real value they bring in terms of
scalability, integration with the rest of enterprise intranet,
friendliness
with XML, etc. I could not succeed on wider scale. Why? With the MySQL
clustering and redundancy people do exactly the same, reinventing
things that
have been done long ago. Reinventing the wheel, I mean.
Well, I think it has
something to do with competence and complexity. The
more components, the more competence required, the higher the
complexity, and thus people stay within their domain (which obviously is
SIP and mysql).
mysql is where you start out, then you get lots of subscribers and
suddenly need redundancy and scalability and you look for the easiest
solution (which eventually may not be the best in terms of cost or
robustness).
So, a full how-to with LDAP and SOAP with all code available would make
more people start using it from day 1.
I will keep developing for LDAP for my company use and try to publish
that as open
source later. I treat it as a task separate from Web service stuff. If
there
is aybody who likes Ldap, we must provide him a possibility do use it
with SER directly.
Yes, I agree. LDAP is good. However, for large scale setups,
LDAP is
also a costly protocol, so using freeRADIUS in front of your LDAP
database would actually do you good (but yes, another component).
Greger:
-----------
Perspective 2, carrier infrastructure:
If SER is part of an infrastructure, you have more requirements. SER
runs
as a transaction server, you have multiple servers, you need to do
replication, and you may have accounts outside the SER database. You
also
have provisioning systems, CRM, helpdesk tools, operations (OSS/BSS).
Looking at the interfaces described above, you will probably use RADIUS,
LDAP, or DIAMETER for accessing a user database and settings (that is a),
e), and f)). If your SIP infrastructure is standalone, you will
probably use
SER's mysql with some kind of replication or usrloc-cl + mysql
cluster. In
the first scenario, you don't need provisioning of accounts, in the
second
you do.
Again, SOAP is probably the most likely to fit the bill as SOAP is more
common among OSS/BSS and CRM systems.
For c) accounting, you need to interface with either a real-time billing
system or periodically dump records readable for a billing system. For
real-time billing, DIAMETER is defined as the IMS/3GPP protocol of
choice.
DIAMETER is based on the principles of RADIUS, an accounting protocol
implemented by many.
Then to IPDR as Arek suggests. IPDR is many things in one. It comes
out of
the traditional Call Data Records, the file-based records used for
encoding
calls. It has turned into a more complex set of transport protocols,
encoding (XML and the sucessor of CDRs: XDR), and schemas. I haven't
looked
at the details, but it probably supports some form of real-time
billing (and
thus authorization). In this respect it overlaps with Open Settlement
Protocol (OSP,
http://www.transnexus.com/White%20Papers/What%20is%20OSP.htm), which we
already have a module for. OSP comes out of TISPAN, the ISP's
standardization effort to adapt 3GPP IMS architecture to the ISP world.
However, I see IPDR more as a back-end accounting specification, than a
real-time settlement protocol.
Here I agree with Jiri, any real-time elements of IPDR is natural to
have as
a SER module, however, the majority of the IPDR specification is
concerned
about a step that is outside SER, namely acocunting start/stop
correlation,
cleaning, and CDR/XDR/IPDR record generation. An IPDR accounting module
would be possible,and probably needed if one wants to enable SER to send
live IPDR data to an IPDR compliant CDR collector.
So, anyone, feel free to implement an IPDR module ;-)
Arek:
--------
Read, agreed.
Years are passing and we still do not have proper IPDR compliant CDR
collector. Every poor SER newbie have to write those little scripts to
extract those date, time and duration of his calls. Let's give them
proper
CDR collector (IPDR recorder I mean) in real-time. The rest of IPDR,
non-real time stuff - keep inside module as well of throw away from
SER - to
be decided.
Yep.
Greger:
----------
Finally, to the d) interface, an SNMP module would probably be nice,
but not
enough. The trend is towards actual service probing where the full user
experience is monitored (ex. automated calls measuring MOS). sipp can
used
for this (not MOS score), but at least doing a full call.
In addition, you have another interface for carrier infrastructures:
g) Application servers (AS)
The standard interface for AS is SIP. ParlayX is used for this in the old
telco world, but AFAIK it has a SIP interface as well. I cannot see
why SER
should implement ParlayX in a module?! Maybe you could enlighten me,
Arek?!
Arek:
-------
And let me enlighten you, Greger ;-)
I've mentioned ParlayX Web services, to make it easy for Parlay and
Web service geeks to build custom application servers. I found it to be a
nice alternative, to have well documented standard interface from SER
server
towards Application Server. I gave an example of SER receiving a SIP
call to a
number, then preparing and sending Web service message to Application
Server.
Hm, how many SER users have an application server that talks ParlayX?!
What does ParlayX give that SIP does not (of course if the application
server supports SIP)?
Upon receiving answer from Application server, SER
servce could act on
SIP message. Action taken could be one like: forward
here, forward there or send him a '486 Busy Here'. I proposed that
because I had
a nice application server (with Web service interfaces) in my company
and I
was looking for some standard way to talk to this server. I though that:
writing ParlayX Web service module for SER + modifying Application
Server to
have ParlayX compliant interfaces would be a really sexy solution to
build
applications like prepaid, prepaid with flat fee, multimedia services,
etc.
I see why you need it if you have a legacy AS that does not support SIP.
But that is backwards looking, if you ask me. How many telco application
servers can be bought today that does not have SIP support? (or rather:
would you like to buy...?)
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Greger:
-----------
ParlayX is a big thing and if SER is to be extended towards more of an
application server, we need to think through what SER should be. SIP
CGI is
interesting for tinkerers, as well as many applications. JSLEE
integration
would be interesting, and of course ParlayX. (I here intentionally
mix up
actual application capabilities with interfaces towards applications
servers...)
My conclusions so far:
- The XMLRPC front-end is good for tinkering, but it does not really
match
what is available of tools and connecting systems in the two scenarios
described above. A SOAP module, maybe even based on a standard(!), would
simplify provisioning and user account settings
Arek:
-------
YES it would. I really could send you today an WSDL of such service
running at
our premises for 2 consequent years. I just cannot do it because of
confidentiality reasons. But will try to go with it to open source as
soon as
possible.
That's great.
Greger:
-----------
- I feel an IPDR module could be a good addition to SER, as long as it
does
not try to do something a SIP server is not meant to be
Arek:
-------
I Agree. Believe me, I don't want to make SER a washing machine with
dryer
either. I just want to give people a compliant CDR recorder, to have a
nice
basis to build their billing applications.
I agree, that is good.
Greger:
-----------
- SNMP would be a good addition
Arek:
--------
Yes it would be. We are ready to work on MIB for that in our company
(I got
a really good specialist for SNMP here, next to my desk).
Bring him or her on!
g-)
6630
days inactive
7246
days old
37 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
Andreas Granig -
Arek Bekiersz -
Arek Bekiersz -
David R. Kompel -
Dragos Vingarzan -
Erik Versaevel -
Greger V. Teigre -
Jiri Kuthan -
Juha Heinanen -
Klaus Darilion -
sip -
sip -
Weiter Leiter