18 May
2005
18 May
'05
10:26 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greger V. Teigre" <greger(a)teigre.com>
To: "Pietro Ravasio" <pietro.ravasio(a)abbeynet.it>it>;
<serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] More on load balancing: LVS + SRVs, SER + Asterisk
Pietro Ravasio wrote:
Not for every single message, but just for REGISTER or for any other message
from UA not in server registration info memory.
In this case the SER (receiveing the message from "unknown UA") will update
info's in proxyIP table and load, from location table, registration infos.
Now this will be the proxy referring to UA.
Anyway, at the moment "mixing Asterisk with
SER" is not my major
concern, I'm pretty worried about trying to use a particular outbound
proxy for calls to a NATed UA:
I'm not sure if I like the idea of doing an sql write for every single
message. That's will be a massive performance hit. But the idea is good.
What about doing LVS NAT?
I think that the dispatcher module of ser can
be used
cheaper instead of using LVS, which will not give you call-id
persistence anyway. AFAIU, your scenario is quite similar to
what I described in this thread:
http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serusers/2005-May/019118.html
Just a different implementation...
Yes, I now agree with you in using this approach rather than "multiple
internal domains" one. The only things I'd like to modify are:
- storing location on every message, not only on REGISTER, in case a
ser dies and lvs udp persistence sends the next UA message to another
SER (for instance my Sipura phone sends a bunch of NOTIFY messages in
order to keep NAT open, if a ser dies and if phone is already
authenticated, I want to update "its SER")