28 Feb
2008
28 Feb
'08
1:18 p.m.
I would just suggest that you try to stay as distro-independent as
possible, i.e. make it easy to switch to another distro and make it easy
for people to bootstrap on another distro by looking at the dependencies
(and maybe contribute their bootstrap script :-).
As for config file, the ser-oob.cfg and ser.cfg that is generated by the
buildsystem (sip_router/etc/buildsystem) are quite close. The
buildsystem has a configure script that can be run as part of the
bootstrap (it creates an m4 config file for local) or a web-based
front-end can generate the config file quite easily.
As I'm the maintainer of the buildsystem, I can promise some support if
the system needs some adaption or the config file needs updating. I
cannot speak for ser-oob.cfg, but as the idea is to show-case the
iptel.org free SIP service config, I assume it will be more static.
See config buildsystem docs:
http://www.iptel.org/sip_express_router_configuration_buildsystem
I'll follow the discussions and contribute where and when I can.
g-)
SIP wrote:
If no one else is going to come forward and
second/debate Mike's
suggestion to use FC, and Mike's the man with the server, then I declare
this project officially FC-based.
These are the people that have so far contacted me and are verified for
working on the SER Bundle Project, and for what tasks I have them available:
Jai Rangi -- kickstart work in FC
Arun Kumar -- flexible
Samuel -- some time/flexible
ram -- testing
Mike Trest -- server, testing, FC wrangling
Tasks we still need to fill (some of which can be filled perhaps by the
people listed above as flexible or others in the project):
Core:
-SERWeb install/config
-RTP Proxy install/config (for base RTP proxy package -- not strictly
SER config)
-SEMS w/voicemail, away announcement, and conferencing support
install/config
Tools:
All tools (ser_ctl, sipsak, tcpdump/ngrep, wireshark/tshark, sipp,
sip_scenario, spyagent+sipspy
Also, with no install package for SER with a basic config, SER itself
will have to be installed/scripted to install with a tailored
config(ser-oob.cfg) for the correct system/parameters. I'm ASSUMING that
will go into the basic core install scripts, so I didn't add it in up
there, but if this is an invalid assumption, someone has to let me know
As you can see, if you're interested in being a part of this project and
can contribute time to getting it going, there are plenty of areas left
where we need people to help. Just let me know, and I'll add you to the
list.
N.
Neil Fusillo wrote:
As long as the environment can be built to be
stable, I'm in complete
agreement. While our initial adopters may be the tinkerers and the
risk-takers, I'd say that a good number of those people already try out
SER (and may ultimately choose something with less of a learning
curve). The biggest market for a SER bundle in the long run is going to
be those who want to get a carrier grade SIP proxy up and running
quickly and easily. Who that might be is somewhat difficult to
determine, but I dare say we don't want to position ourselves as
building a bundle for those who're willing to take risks. ;)
That said, the decision for CentOS came about because it is simply a
GPL-compliant duplicate distro of Red Hat Enterprise Linux -- the single
most common and most popular distribution amongst people who run linux
in a carrier-grade situation.
Fedora Core, being the test bed for RHEL, has the same structure but
newer, slightly less-vetted packages. However, if we can ensure
stability, then none of that matters and no one will really care what
distro it's built upon (as long as it's familiar to the admins who
manage it). If you say you can build a stable FC-based SER server, then
I say we go for it.
Do we have a second to Mike's motion to use FC as the base distro?
Mike Trest - Personal wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Hi,
This is to summarize my opinions about FC* distro use.
IMHO, I think FC* is best selection as it contains many more fixes
than does the older CENTOS (based on 5). I have deployed several
hundred FC* boxes in VoIP applications. This is over 10,000 active
ports without "Enterprise" stability issues.
IMHO this project needs the quickest path to the Enterprise community
regardless of the OS/distro used.
I suppose the ultimate question is who is our target? Ourselves,
naturally. However, I suggest our target is not the bankers or
major corporations with lots of rules and procedures. That group
will never adopt SER until they have a commercial-grade support
system to advise their IT folks what to do for every question they may have.
IMHO our initial target is those early adopters who are trying to
create new businesses in telecomm or consulting-on-telecom. We want
them to have a solid core that they can leverage into their new
appliances and specialized applications.
The early adopters are risk-takers (This means us as well!) They
demand an open box in which they can face the SIP world with some
assurance of standards compliance while at the same time they can
face their clients with something better, faster, cheaper, and
innovative enough to get paid well for their efforts.
Making a technology "buy - in" decision at any point in time is only
a check point - not a final resting place. IMHO, we are better off
selecting an OS/distro effort that has a large share of both early
adopters and long term commercial support - - - so long as it meets
our current and future technical **AND** target market
requirements. Research confirms that the RH/FC community is the
largest community with name recognition and respect among both the
"geek-innovator" community as well as the Enterprise community.
..mike..
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers