7 Dec
2004
7 Dec
'04
10:53 a.m.
Hello,
Do you use SER for routing / authorizing in any way or do you only use
asterisk for that?
Does the Foundry ServerIron take care of sip sessions ending up at the same
SER machine (by looking at the called for example)?
And why not use the ServerIron directly for loadbalancing the asterisk
boxes?
Btw, I can't seem to find the dispatcher module either.
Kind regards,
E. Versaevel
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] Namens
Michael Shuler
Verzonden: dinsdag 7 december 2004 4:36
Aan: 'Jiri Kuthan'; 'Matt Schulte'; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Onderwerp: RE: [Serusers] Loadbalancing / high availability
I was not aware that there was a dispatcher module (I don't see any docs for
it on the site).
The Foundry load balances the SIP messages as they come from VoIP phones on
the Internet over the cluster of SER boxes which then balance the "sessions"
over ast_data patched Asterisk boxes (since a "session" must continuously go
to the same Asterisk box to maintain call state within Asterisk). To
balance the session from SER over the Asterisk boxes I am using round robin
DNS where ast.bwsys.net actually expires every second through ast0, ast1,
ast2, etc. So SER does a forward("ast.bwsys.net") on the initial INVITE
messages from the VoIP phones. The Asterisk boxes conveniently replaces
ast.bwsys.net with their real IP and SER uses the real IP on all future
messages automatically until that "session" is done. The next INVITE from
the same VoIP phone is then put through the same round robin DNS and may end
up on a different Asterisk server next time.
----------------------------------------
Michael Shuler, C.E.O.
BitWise Communications, Inc. (CLEC) And BitWise Systems, Inc. (ISP)
682 High Point Lane
East Peoria, IL 61611
Office: (217) 585-0357
Cell: (309) 657-6365
Fax: (309) 213-3500
E-Mail: mike(a)bwsys.net
Customer Service: (877) 976-0711
-----Original Message-----
From: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri@iptel.org]
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 1:27 AM
To: Michael Shuler; 'Matt Schulte'; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: RE: [Serusers] Loadbalancing / high availability
What is exactly role of ServerIron when SER does load balancing?
Are you using SER's dispatcher module?
-jiri
At 05:37 PM 12/1/2004, Michael Shuler wrote:
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
We use a Foundry ServerIron XL and it seems to
work fine.
We do not use SER
as a stateful proxy though. SER is basically a
SIP message
load balancer
across our Asterisk boxes.
----------------------------------------
Michael Shuler, C.E.O.
BitWise Communications, Inc. (CLEC) And BitWise Systems, Inc. (ISP)
682 High Point Lane
East Peoria, IL 61611
Office: (217) 585-0357
Cell: (309) 657-6365
Fax: (309) 213-3500
E-Mail: mike(a)bwsys.net
Customer Service: (877) 976-0711
> -----Original Message-----
> From: serusers-bounces(a)lists.iptel.org
> [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Matt Schulte
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:42 AM
> To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> Subject: RE: [Serusers] Loadbalancing / high availability
>
>
>
> I'm curious what brand load balancer you would use, would it be IP
> based. We tried out a Cisco SLB and had no luck, mainly
> because it would
> NAT to the servers (more trouble than it's worth?). We were
> thinking of
> using a heartbeat type failover, similar to what you would do
> for MySQL:
>
> http://linux-ha.org/download/
>
> Has anyone tried this method? We're more concerned about the high
> availability than anything.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: E. Versaevel [mailto:erik@infopact.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:24 AM
> To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> Subject: [Serusers] Loadbalancing / high availability
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering if it is necessary for a SIP packet from a
> specific call
> to always go through the same server?
>
> For instance, if you have a load balancer distributing
requests over a
> few servers, it is possible that an INVITE
ends up on 1
> server while the
> following INVITE with the credentials ends up on another,
> would this be
> a problem (ie, break the authorization) or should you use
a SIP aware
> loadbalancer for this (who looks at the
callid for
example)? Assuming
> the ser servers are setup to use the same
userdatabase (and
> t_replicate
> to eachother) the picture would be something like this:
>
> |
> --------------
> |loadbalancer|
> --------------
> |
> |
> --------------------
> | | |
> ------- ------- -------
> | | | | | |
> | ser1| | ser2| | ser3|
> | | | | | |
> ------- ------- -------
>
> If you setup the servers with the same IP as the load
> balancer and stop
> them from replying to ARP requests for that IP, replying back
> thru a NAT
> should not be a problem.
>
> Just thinking out loud, I could use SER for the load balancing and
> t_relay the packets, however that would require some
> tampering with the
> VIA records (and I should use a reply to via in that case to the
> original IP the SIP request came from, eg not the load
balancer) this
> way outgoing SIP traffic would not have to go
thru the ser
> loadbalancer
> again to get out, hmm, it might even be possible to use a
route-record
header to
get the packets back at the correct server...
Kind regards,
E. Versaevel
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers