12 Nov
2007
12 Nov
'07
2:54 p.m.
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(a)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=z9hG4bKFCDF5014775145F7BBFB33B621BC8BC0.
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(a)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(a)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:
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
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(a)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.
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers 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(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/