New subject: [Serusers] R: R: R: R: Loadbalancing for interco

13 Nov 2007


      At 18:48 12/11/2007, Stefano Capitanio wrote:
...
Yes, it seems really strange also to me.
I've tried with both SER-0.9.6 and OpenSER-1.2.2 on a Gentoo-linux
And in both cases there is the same problem...
Do you think that can be a problem of installation/compiling?
Have ever heard something like that?
Not really :-(
Calling forward can't change contacts -- perhaps you are mistakenly
starting SER with other config file than you think?
-jiri
...
-Stefano
...
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri@iptel.org]
Inviato: lunedì 12 novembre 2007 18.28
A: Stefano Capitanio; serusers@lists.iptel.org
Oggetto: Re: [Serusers] R: R: Loadbalancing for interco
I think there is some confusion here ... SER doesn't change contacts by
the action referred to
bellow.
-jiri
At 17:54 12/11/2007, Stefano Capitanio wrote:
...
It is the simplest ser.cfg you can imagine:
   Route {
           forward(z.z.z.z,5060);
   }


The message enter in SER (y.y.y.y) as:
   U x.x.x.x:5060 -> y.y.y.y:5060
   REGISTER sip:213.203.128.126 SIP/2.0.
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP

x.x.x.x:5060;rport;branch=z9hG4bKFCDF5014775145F7BBFB33B621BC8BC0.
...
   From: openser <sip:123456102@y.y.y.y>;tag=1540538748.
   To: openser <sip:123456102@y.y.y.y>.
   Contact: "openser" <sip:123456102@x.x.x.x:5060>.
   Call-ID: 23FDB6F533AC4BCF840FD35F34B385FD@y.y.y.y.
   CSeq: 60558 REGISTER.
   Expires: 120.
   Max-Forwards: 70.
   User-Agent: X-Lite release 1103m.
   Content-Length: 0.


And goes out as:
   U y.y.y.y:5060 -> z.z.z.z:5060
   REGISTER sip:y.y.y.y SIP/2.0.
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP y.y.y.y:5060;branch=0.
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP

195.110.129.41:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bKFCDF5014775145F7BBFB33B621BC8
BC0.
...
   From: openser <sip:123456102@y.y.y.y>;tag=1540538748.
   To: openser <sip:123456102@y.y.y.y>.
   Contact: "openser" <sip:123456102@y.y.y.y:5060>.
   Call-ID: 23FDB6F533AC4BCF840FD35F34B385FD@y.y.y.y.
   CSeq: 60558 REGISTER.
   Expires: 120.
   Max-Forwards: 70.
   User-Agent: X-Lite release 1103m.
   Content-Length: 0.


...
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri@iptel.org]
Inviato: lunedì 12 novembre 2007 17.41
A: Stefano Capitanio; serusers@lists.iptel.org
Oggetto: Re: [Serusers] R: Loadbalancing for interco
I haven't seen your config file, but normally it does not change
Contacts.
...
...
It changes contacts if it is configured to deal with NATs.
-jiri
At 17:20 12/11/2007, Stefano Capitanio wrote:
...
Ok, thanks for your answer, I understand your position.
Anyway I cannot understand why SER modify the Contact header without
any
...
...
instruction about that in the config file...is there any reason
concerning
...
...
RFC compliance?
...
Best regards,
Stefano
...
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri@iptel.org]
Inviato: lunedì 12 novembre 2007 17.09
A: Stefano Capitanio; serusers@lists.iptel.org
Oggetto: Re: [Serusers] Loadbalancing for interco
Well, load-balancing is not easy. To deal with issues like you are
describing,
your best choice is a load-balancer which is capable of working in
transparent
mode. We have such in our intelligence, some work, some less so, let
me
...
...
...
...
know
if you need some intelligence on this.
-jiri
At 12:23 12/11/2007, Stefano Capitanio wrote:
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>        boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8251E.664EA61A"
>
>Hi,
>
>we are trying to do the same with our servers but we have some
problem
...
...
...
...
with registrations:
>it seem that when the REGISTER message pass through SER, the host-
part
...
...
of
...
...
Contact field is modified with the local address of SER.
>Is it a misconfiguration problem?
>Do you have experience in balancing also the registrations?
>
>Thanks,
>Stefano
>
>
>On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 11:02 +0200, inge wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>
>>
>
>> Is there a way to have something like a loadbalancing on SER for
>
>> outgoing calls ?
>
>>
>
>> I want to distribute the calls between two gateways. Ideally,
with a
...
...
...
...
>
>> coefficient (ie. 60% for the first and 40% for the second).
>
>>
>
>> Thanks for your support.
>
>>
>
>> Adrien .L
>_______________________________________________
>Serusers mailing list
>Serusers@lists.iptel.org
>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/

Serusers mailing list
Serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/

Serusers mailing list
Serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/

Serusers mailing list
Serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/

Re: [Serusers] R: R: R: Loadbalancing for interco