18 May
2005
18 May
'05
2:50 a.m.
Simith,
Not easy to tell what the problem can be. You haven't included your
ser.cfg. If you are new to ser, I would recommend that you download the
Getting Started document from http://onsip.org/ and the configuration file
package with all the ser.cfg example files. Those should get you started.
g-)
Simith Nambiar wrote:
Hi Greger,
Thanks for the response, I don't know you, but i have been seeing your
response
on the mailing list for Serusers, but my post is never landing there
, which is my problem.
I subscribed yesterday, still my requests are pending "Moderator
approval" , i would have been happy
if someone could help me, in running SER, i have an Error coming from
route.c pasted below,
It is from fix_rls --> fix_action , i don't understand what they are
doing there in code, as i'am new to SER.
Listening on
udp: 127.0.0.1 [127.0.0.1]:5070
udp: 10.10.100.44 [10.10.100.44]:5070
tcp: 127.0.0.1 [127.0.0.1]:5070
tcp: 10.10.100.44 [10.10.100.44]:5070
Aliases:
tcp: linuxdemo:5070
tcp: linuxdemo.indts.com:5070
tcp: localhost:5070
tcp: localhost.localdomain:5070
udp: linuxdemo:5070
udp: linuxdemo.indts.com:5070
udp: localhost:5070
udp: localhost.localdomain:5070
WARNING: no fork mode and more than one listen address found(will
use only the the first one)
stateless - initializing
0(0) Maxfwd module- initializing
textops - initializing
ERROR: error -478 while trying to fix configuration
Something wrong with the config file ?
As my mails are not reaching the list, can you plz forward this or
offer any help that might fix my problem !
Thanks for your time.
Cheers.
Simith
-----Original Message-----
From: Greger V. Teigre [mailto:greger@teigre.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 11:42 AM
To: Simith Nambiar
Subject: Re: [Serusers] More on load balancing: LVS + SRVs, SER +
Asterisk
I'm not sure if I know you and your problem? Posting on serusers is
your best hope to get help. Be specific and write short summary at
the top what the problem is, then add more info further below. Most
often a post that is
not answered is because it's too much work to try to decipher what the
problem can be.
g-)
Simith Nambiar wrote:
Hi Greger,
I feel you are busy , please can you give me some id,
that i can write to to fix my problem,
I mean the moderator or someone, i'am badly in ned of a solution, as
i do not Ser very well, i'am not able to fix it on my
own.
Maybe once i study the code, i can fix it myself, until then i just
wanted to see it up and running and test it for some
funcionality, hope u understand.
Please help !
cheers.
Simith
-----Original Message-----
From: Greger V. Teigre [mailto:greger@teigre.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 11:12 AM
To: Pietro Ravasio; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] More on load balancing: LVS + SRVs, SER +
Asterisk
Pietro Ravasio wrote:
No, I don't think so. That is trying to do something at the
application level that people have long figured out is better done at
lower levels... In fact, I believe the simplest solution would be to
make sure that LVS can select ANY SER for load balancing and use LVS
NAT (which is quite scalable and is the way Cisco does it). The
simplest way to modify ser for this would be to make sure that all
lookup("location") calls actually make an sql
read. If each ser instance flushes each save to db and a shared sql
cluster
is used as backend, you are good to go.
The other way is to implement call-id persistence in IPVS (LVS' load
balancer). I like this better, because you do it in kernel mode and
don't add a whole lot of new DB reads...
g-)
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned via a message filtering facility.
If you have any issues with your email, please contact the IT Dept.
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned via a message filtering facility.
If you have any issues with your email, please contact the IT Dept. 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") - using only one table for every SER storing in a
different column
the proxy (taken from dst_ip) who has handled the message. This way
I don't have to preprovision all SER instances in all ser.cfg
routing logics. At this point:
But then you have to modify SER, which is back to where we started:
1. If you have to modify SER to do load balancing, what would be the
best way to do it?
2. The answer is most likely: Do it in a module like dispatcher, but
add call-id persistence
3. Doing level 7 load balancing can only be effective in the kernel
So why not focus your attention on creating call-id persistence in
LVS? ;-)
.) if I use a B2B user agent in order to handle
NAT (for instance
asterisk) - I'd send INVITE to my B2B UA
(t_relay_to_udp("b2bua_lvs_virtual_ip")) with rewritten Contact:
field with the IP number of the (outbound) SER UAB has
registered/sent its latest message to (taken from DB)
..) otherwise, in a "pure SER" environment,
- I'd send INVITE directly to the SER proxy which IP:port is taken
from DB with the same logic as above
Yes, but how do you know the server just went down and you still
haven't updated the IP:port of the UA? I assume you will use
t_replicate and save_memory to make sure that all servers have the
updated registration info
in memory? (as DB writethrough works fine, but other ser's will not
load the
new location upon receiving an INVITE) You probably have to do
t_replicate for EVERY message to update the IP:port of the UA and
you're into massive overload of SIP messages (used by t_replicate).
Using only one location table could be useful in
order to create a
flexible routing logic: if the server taken from DB is not online
anymore, send message to another one (randomly chosen), hoping that
UAS is not behind nat. This logic could be inserted in B2BUA dialing
plans or in ser.cfg.
I don't like the word "hoping"...
If
it's work, it's a workaround. No better or worse than other
workarounds... g-)
At the moment I start thinking that any technique that tries to bind
an outbound SER for all calls to a set of user agents, is going to
be a workaround... Am I wrong? :-/