RE: [Serusers] Loadbalancing / high availability

balance the session from SER over the Asterisk boxes I am

DNS where ast.bwsys.net actually expires every second

ast2, etc. So SER does a forward("ast.bwsys.net") on the

messages from the VoIP phones. The Asterisk boxes

ast.bwsys.net with their real IP and SER uses the real IP on

messages automatically until that "session" is done. The

the same VoIP phone is then put through the same round robin

up on a different Asterisk server next time. ---------------------------------------- Michael Shuler, C.E.O. BitWise Communications, Inc. (CLEC) And BitWise Systems, Inc. (ISP) 682 High Point Lane East Peoria, IL 61611 Office: (217) 585-0357 Cell: (309) 657-6365 Fax: (309) 213-3500 E-Mail: mike(a)bwsys.net Customer Service: (877) 976-0711 >-----Original Message----- >From: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri@iptel.org] >Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 1:27 AM >To: Michael Shuler; 'Matt Schulte'; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >Subject: RE: [Serusers] Loadbalancing / high availability > > >What is exactly role of ServerIron when SER does load balancing? >Are you using SER's dispatcher module? > >-jiri > >At 05:37 PM 12/1/2004, Michael Shuler wrote: > >>We use a Foundry ServerIron XL and it seems to work fine. > >We do not use SER > >>as a stateful proxy though. SER is basically a SIP message > >load balancer > >>across our Asterisk boxes. >> >>---------------------------------------- >> >>Michael Shuler, C.E.O. >>BitWise Communications, Inc. (CLEC) And BitWise Systems,

>>682 High Point Lane >>East Peoria, IL 61611 >>Office: (217) 585-0357 >>Cell: (309) 657-6365 >>Fax: (309) 213-3500 >>E-Mail: mike(a)bwsys.net >>Customer Service: (877) 976-0711 >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: serusers-bounces(a)lists.iptel.org >>>[mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Matt Schulte >>>Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:42 AM >>>To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >>>Subject: RE: [Serusers] Loadbalancing / high availability >>> >>> >>> >>>I'm curious what brand load balancer you would use,

>>>based. We tried out a Cisco SLB and had no luck, mainly >>>because it would >>>NAT to the servers (more trouble than it's worth?). We were >>>thinking of >>>using a heartbeat type failover, similar to what you would do >>>for MySQL: >>> >>>http://linux-ha.org/download/ >>> >>>Has anyone tried this method? We're more concerned

>>>availability than anything. >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: E. Versaevel [mailto:erik@infopact.nl] >>>Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:24 AM >>>To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >>>Subject: [Serusers] Loadbalancing / high availability >>> >>> >>>Hello, >>> >>>I was wondering if it is necessary for a SIP packet from a >>>specific call >>>to always go through the same server? >>> >>>For instance, if you have a load balancer distributing > >requests over a > >>>few servers, it is possible that an INVITE ends up on 1 >>>server while the >>>following INVITE with the credentials ends up on another, >>>would this be >>>a problem (ie, break the authorization) or should you use > >a SIP aware > >>>loadbalancer for this (who looks at the callid for > >example)? Assuming > >>>the ser servers are setup to use the same userdatabase (and >>>t_replicate >>>to eachother) the picture would be something like this: >>> >>> | >>> -------------- >>> |loadbalancer| >>> -------------- >>> | >>> | >>> -------------------- >>> | | | >>> ------- ------- ------- >>> | | | | | | >>> | ser1| | ser2| | ser3| >>> | | | | | | >>> ------- ------- ------- >>> >>>If you setup the servers with the same IP as the load >>>balancer and stop >>>them from replying to ARP requests for that IP, replying back >>>thru a NAT >>>should not be a problem. >>> >>>Just thinking out loud, I could use SER for the load

>>>t_relay the packets, however that would require some >>>tampering with the >>>VIA records (and I should use a reply to via in that case to the >>>original IP the SIP request came from, eg not the load > >balancer) this > >>>way outgoing SIP traffic would not have to go thru the ser >>>loadbalancer >>>again to get out, hmm, it might even be possible to use a > >route-record > >>>header to get the packets back at the correct server... >>> >>> >>>Kind regards, >>> >>>E. Versaevel >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Serusers mailing list >>>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org

>>>_______________________________________________ >>>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 > >-- >Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/ > _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers