Fw: [Serusers] replication and rtpproxy - sr-users

27 Feb 2004

No...our SIP server DNS entries time out at 5 minutes.  It does not matter
where the entry is cached.  Unless it is cached by someone who ignores our
TTL...but that has not been the case so far.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Klaus Darilion" &lt;klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at&gt;
To: "Andres" &lt;andres(a)telesip.net&gt;
Cc: "Nils Ohlmeier" &lt;nils(a)iptel.org&gt;rg>; &lt;serusers(a)lists.iptel.org&gt;
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] replication and rtpproxy

...
  But this will work only if the client uses your DNS
servers, because the
 DNS entries are cached by the other nameservers - or do you have a very
 short TTL configured?

 I think also softclients will have problems as Windows XP by default
 caches the DNS lookups.

 regards,
 klaus

 Andres wrote:
 > Hi Klaus,
 >
 > We use DNS updates.  We have special scripts based on sipsak (Thanks Nils!),
...
  > that check all SIP servers every minute.  If
something is wrong, then we
 > update our DNS dynamically to point to another SIP Server.  If the UAs are
...
  > unable to register then they redo their DNS query
and find the new IP.
 > Works quite well in combination with replication since the backup server has
...
  > the exact duplicate location table.
 >
 > Regards,
 > Andres
 >
 > ----- Original Message ----- 
 > From: "Klaus Darilion" &lt;klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at&gt;
 > To: "Nils Ohlmeier" &lt;nils(a)iptel.org&gt;
 > Cc: &lt;serusers(a)lists.iptel.org&gt;
 > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 9:59 AM
 > Subject: Re: [Serusers] replication and rtpproxy
 >
 >
 >
 >>
 >>Nils Ohlmeier wrote:
 >>
 >>>On Thursday 26 February 2004 03:28, Arnd Vehling wrote:
 >>>
 >>>>Next question :) Is there any way that a failover server pickups the
 >>>>neccessary port bindings for portaones rtpproxy or do will all
 >>>>"rtpproxied" sessions fail when a failover server will take
over
 >>>>a primary server?
 >>>
 >>>
 >>>As currently the rtp-proxy has to run on the same host as SER it does
 >
 > not make
 >
 >>>much sence IMHO to think about taking over rtp-proxy sessions. Then you
 >
 > would
 >
 >>>need some kind of rtp-proxy session replication, which should be easy
 >
 > when
 >
 >>>the nathelper module and the rtp proxy ever uses IP protocol for
 >>>communication. But all this will only work if the backup server takes
 >
 > over
 >
 >>>the IP of the failed server, and you are not using SRV backup servers
 >
 > for
 >
 >>>example (except that a SRV backup can obviously also can takeover the
 >
 > IP).
 >
 >>Is it yet possible to build redundancy on top of SRV? I tested some
 >>clients (Xlite, Budgetone-100, Windows Messenger 4.7) wether they use
 >>SRV records to locate the proxy and Messenger is the only one who uses it.
...

So, if I use these clients, is there any other failover solution than IP
takeover?

regards,
klaus

_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers