Hi,
On 5 Feb 2015 09:18, "Leonardo Arena" rnalrd@gmail.com wrote:
On mer, 2015-02-04 at 21:15 +0000, Charles Chance wrote:
Hi,
On 3 Feb 2015 10:07, "Leonardo Arena" rnalrd@gmail.com wrote:
On lun, 2015-02-02 at 17:54 +0000, Charles Chance wrote:
[snip ]
dmq.my.domain.netresolves to 10.0.0.2 which is proxy2. What I'm effectively trying to do with DNS is to avoid having a static entry
in
configuration file as notification address. I'd like to build a
dynamic
list of notification servers via SRV records and have DMQ honor the priority and weight of such list.
This will not work currently but I may have some time soon to look into it. Unless someone else proposes a patch first.
Yeah, this was my conclusion too after few tests. An SRV query is actually sent (but only if there's an A record for the the given notification address), the higher priority address is chosen, but if this fails it never failover to a lower priority address.
Also if notification server goes down, I haven't seen any attempt to re-contacting it in case it goes back on-line. Or may be I didn't wait enough time to observe it.
It should do, if the address is configured statically.
I think it would be nice to have the information of notification servers in DNS SRV records. This would help in building a distributed infrastructure, rather than having such info in static configuration files, which are more suitable for clusters.
I will try to replicate your scenario and come back with a
solution
shortly.
I have a patch which is working in my tests but I am waiting to hear of any possible side effects. It should be in master branch shortly.
I saw the patch on sr-dev. Thanks!
Did you have chance to test it yourself? With it, you do not need to call append_branch() in config.
- leonardo
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users