Hello,
Let me clarify my yesterday's proposal for new features.
1) New modules: a) auth_ldap b) group_ldap c) uri_ldap d) avp_ldap
It would be desirable for these modules to re-use existing dbase abstraction layer in SER. So to treat Ldap as just one more backend. So far the Ldap support was created in an ad-hoc manner, without regard for global dbase approach.
Jiri Kuthan kas proposed to do "one module, which would act as a single LDAP driver for all DB-based modules". I think that this is something similar - having a common way (a driver) to access LDAP and then having all standard modules to just reuse this new ldap backend.
2) "soap_ipdr" module versus "sermanager" idea I proposed to embed IPDR reporting tool for billing in a new SER module. But after some discussion I think maybe the better option is to create this as an external C application. It would be a stand-alone application using gSOAP library, containing built-in simple Web server. Application could be called "sermanager" and could provide SOAP interfaces for user at the one side and connect to SER subsystem on the other. To connect to SER it would use sql, fifo, ldap or other technologies that are applicable for particular SER installation - it would be configurable by administrator. It would serve as a middlelayer (mediation software), providing vast set of functionalities for user,and freeing SER core from any additional work. SER will just serve for call routing/reporting.
I observed that the same idea happening in Asterisk. They will have external application called 'manager' that provides easy-to-use XML-RPC and SOAP interfaces to the world, at the same time speaking with Asterisk using AGI or simple file operations. Their reason was also to free Asterisk from additional work and create separate application entity to handle broad set of user-friendly functions.
"Sermanager" could contain functions divided in different areas of interest. They could be added as modules, so for example when user does not wish to use billing, he just unloads relevant module. I propose to split functionalities into following separate Web services (called "engines"). Of course every engine and every function will be accessible by different classes of users. Access information will be stored in small accompanying sql database or ldap backend, according to administrator wish.
a) "call_register" engine - call reporting (calls made, received, missed), without call costs. It will be in proprietary format, to be agreed. In addition calls made will be exported in standard IPDR format, VoIP profile.
b) "billing_management" engine - call costs reporting in proprietary format. This element will depend on external Web Services (BSS systems, SAP and others). On request from user, "sermanager" will send list of calls to this external service and retrieve calculated costs of calls. Then it will send this list to user.
c) "users_management" engine - adding, deleting, modifying users (either single users or batches of users)
d) "domain_management" engine - adding, deleting, modifying SIP domains. Optional - we have many domains on every single server, so we have tools to add dbase entries and eventually DNS entries. Not everybody will need that.
e) "registrar_management" - functions to export list of registered users per domain/per server.
f) "system_management" - reporting of SER statistics, export of SER log messages, current transactions, memory utilization, etc.
g) "terminal_management" - adding,deleting,modifying user agents, storage of device data and configuration files, etc.
h) "voicemail_management" - retrieving/deleting/modifying remote voicemail files on voicemail servers, such as Asterisk or SEMS. Voicemail messages will be returned in SOAP Body or as MIME attachment. Engine will require external Web service to run on Asterisk or SEMS machines. Unless we will have Web services from Asterisk that will provide access to voicemail functions - it may happen soon. Until then I can provide set of Web services to handle voicemail on Asterisk.
i) "phonebook_management" - adding/modifying/deleting phonebook entries in both: private and public phonebook, retrieving entries, searching for entries
j) "service_management" - initiating calls with REFER, initiating calls directly at User Agent (like Asterisk call-out), or other services, depending on needs. It may serve in future to add services like: automatic call-out campaigns, integration with SMS gateways and others
Other functions may include: Instant Messaging and Presence capabilities, like: sending Instant Message or SMS, getting list of messages, getting buddy status and/or location, etc. It is to be discussed as most of those functionalities are also provided by SIP itself.
Imagine the possibilities of having a SIP software phone with build-in SOAP client. Then you can easily integrate a server-stored public or private phonebook, create a buddy list that will reporting their online status and so on.
When the "sermanager" application is ready, I can to provide associated Web interface as well. It will be called "serwebmanager" and it can be placed on the same server as "sermanager" or remote dedicated Web server. It will speak with "sermanager" with SOAP and will generate viewable Web content using XSLT. It could be used by both single account users and system administrators. One advantage of such approach (apart for real simplicity of "sermanager" PHP scripts) is that the content may be quickly adopted to different classes of end devices such as: HTML browsers, WAP browsers or simplified XML browsers. Imagine the possibilities of having a SIP videophone with simplified HTML 4.0 Web browser build in and being able to login to your personal SER profile Web page and manage your calls, diverts and voicemail messages.
3) The "SIP-SOAP gateway" functionality. Ideology behind that proposal was to add new option to SER routing, to ask external application about what to do with incoming SIP request. So how to route it, in example: a) discard b) rewrite URI c) forward as is It is basically the same idea as in SIP CGI RFC3050, but done with SOAP instead of CGI interface.
I have chosen Parlay X Web Services 2.0, because they provide a complete model for Web service definition and message exchanges. We just need to create one or two functions in SER routing to be able to ask external Web service. And to perform some action upon receiving an answer.
Here, the concern may be a possible decrease of SER perfomance when connecting with SOAP or parsing XML. But I propose to use gSOAP library and as seen on its Web page http://gsoap2.sourceforge.net/ in Perfomance area, the well written gSOAP application is capable of handling approx.3000 roundtrip message exchanges per second. My rough estimate is that single system would not be saturated for system with up to 50k-60k subscribers. Of course provided that processing time of the actual application behind gSOAP is relatively small.
To facilitate discussion I attach the drawing of target architecture. Please tell me what you think.
-- Regards, Arek Bekiersz
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jiri Kuthan" jiri@iptel.org To: sip@perceval.net; "Serusers" serusers@lists.iptel.org Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 7:47 PM Subject: Re: [Serusers] Proposal for new features
I would actually like one module, which would act as a single LDAP driver
for all
DB-based modules, as opposed to rewrite every single module outthere using
LDAP.
May be a bit tricky with the LDAP hierarchical module, but still doable.
jiri
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
