Tools: All tools (ser_ctl, sipsak, tcpdump/ngrep, wireshark/tshark, sipp, sip_scenario, spyagent+sipspy

Just thinking loud...may be not feasible... but.... it would be great that the base would enable easily interconnecting to other already running systems coming from the base via TLS so it would create kind of "trusted" SER nodes. This way newcomers to "SIP providers world" would have an added value installing the base...I think that just installing the right certificates in the base would make things easier. This made me think about how many features would the base include? *TLS *auth_identity *presence... For all of them to work we need different instances of SER due to the ssl library incompatibility. How big are we gonna make the base? Case we can deploy several TLS+auth_identiy running nodes it would be "easy" to add SPIT methods.... Maybe too far, Samuel. 2008/2/28, Mike Trest - Personal &lt;Mike(a)trest.com <mailto:Mike@trest.com>>: At 11:11 AM 2/28/2008, SIP wrote: I will install & maintain wireshark, tcpdump and any other standard linux packages. Anyone with specific version needs, just let me know. I will need to lookup sipp, sip_scenario, spyagent,sipspy as I am not familiar with them. Anyone want to suggest a specifc version or URL for these? ..mike.. _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org <mailto:Serusers@lists.iptel.org> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

At 11:11 AM 2/28/2008, SIP wrote: I will install & maintain wireshark, tcpdump and any other standard linux packages. Anyone with specific version needs, just let me know. I will need to lookup sipp, sip_scenario, spyagent,sipspy as I am not familiar with them. Anyone want to suggest a specifc version or URL for these? ..mike.. _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

I would just suggest that you try to stay as distro-independent as possible, i.e. make it easy to switch to another distro and make it easy for people to bootstrap on another distro by looking at the dependencies (and maybe contribute their bootstrap script :-). As for config file, the ser-oob.cfg and ser.cfg that is generated by the buildsystem (sip_router/etc/buildsystem) are quite close. The buildsystem has a configure script that can be run as part of the bootstrap (it creates an m4 config file for local) or a web-based front-end can generate the config file quite easily. As I'm the maintainer of the buildsystem, I can promise some support if the system needs some adaption or the config file needs updating. I cannot speak for ser-oob.cfg, but as the idea is to show-case the iptel.org free SIP service config, I assume it will be more static. See config buildsystem docs: http://www.iptel.org/sip_express_router_configuration_buildsystem I'll follow the discussions and contribute where and when I can. g-) SIP wrote: > If no one else is going to come forward and second/debate Mike's > suggestion to use FC, and Mike's the man with the server, then I declare > this project officially FC-based. > > These are the people that have so far contacted me and are verified for > working on the SER Bundle Project, and for what tasks I have them available: > > Jai Rangi -- kickstart work in FC > Arun Kumar -- flexible > Samuel -- some time/flexible > ram -- testing > Mike Trest -- server, testing, FC wrangling > > Tasks we still need to fill (some of which can be filled perhaps by the > people listed above as flexible or others in the project): > > Core: > -SERWeb install/config > -RTP Proxy install/config (for base RTP proxy package -- not strictly > SER config) > -SEMS w/voicemail, away announcement, and conferencing support > install/config > > Tools: > All tools (ser_ctl, sipsak, tcpdump/ngrep, wireshark/tshark, sipp, > sip_scenario, spyagent+sipspy > > Also, with no install package for SER with a basic config, SER itself > will have to be installed/scripted to install with a tailored > config(ser-oob.cfg) for the correct system/parameters. I'm ASSUMING that > will go into the basic core install scripts, so I didn't add it in up > there, but if this is an invalid assumption, someone has to let me know > > > As you can see, if you're interested in being a part of this project and > can contribute time to getting it going, there are plenty of areas left > where we need people to help. Just let me know, and I'll add you to the > list. > > > > N. > > > Neil Fusillo wrote: > >> As long as the environment can be built to be stable, I'm in complete >> agreement. While our initial adopters may be the tinkerers and the >> risk-takers, I'd say that a good number of those people already try out >> SER (and may ultimately choose something with less of a learning >> curve). The biggest market for a SER bundle in the long run is going to >> be those who want to get a carrier grade SIP proxy up and running >> quickly and easily. Who that might be is somewhat difficult to >> determine, but I dare say we don't want to position ourselves as >> building a bundle for those who're willing to take risks. ;) >> >> That said, the decision for CentOS came about because it is simply a >> GPL-compliant duplicate distro of Red Hat Enterprise Linux -- the single >> most common and most popular distribution amongst people who run linux >> in a carrier-grade situation. >> >> Fedora Core, being the test bed for RHEL, has the same structure but >> newer, slightly less-vetted packages. However, if we can ensure >> stability, then none of that matters and no one will really care what >> distro it's built upon (as long as it's familiar to the admins who >> manage it). If you say you can build a stable FC-based SER server, then >> I say we go for it. >> >> Do we have a second to Mike's motion to use FC as the base distro? >> >> >> Mike Trest - Personal wrote: >> >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This is to summarize my opinions about FC* distro use. >>> >>> IMHO, I think FC* is best selection as it contains many more fixes >>> than does the older CENTOS (based on 5). I have deployed several >>> hundred FC* boxes in VoIP applications. This is over 10,000 active >>> ports without "Enterprise" stability issues. >>> >>> IMHO this project needs the quickest path to the Enterprise community >>> regardless of the OS/distro used. >>> >>> I suppose the ultimate question is who is our target? Ourselves, >>> naturally. However, I suggest our target is not the bankers or >>> major corporations with lots of rules and procedures. That group >>> will never adopt SER until they have a commercial-grade support >>> system to advise their IT folks what to do for every question they may have. >>> >>> IMHO our initial target is those early adopters who are trying to >>> create new businesses in telecomm or consulting-on-telecom. We want >>> them to have a solid core that they can leverage into their new >>> appliances and specialized applications. >>> >>> The early adopters are risk-takers (This means us as well!) They >>> demand an open box in which they can face the SIP world with some >>> assurance of standards compliance while at the same time they can >>> face their clients with something better, faster, cheaper, and >>> innovative enough to get paid well for their efforts. >>> >>> Making a technology "buy - in" decision at any point in time is only >>> a check point - not a final resting place. IMHO, we are better off >>> selecting an OS/distro effort that has a large share of both early >>> adopters and long term commercial support - - - so long as it meets >>> our current and future technical **AND** target market >>> requirements. Research confirms that the RH/FC community is the >>> largest community with name recognition and respect among both the >>> "geek-innovator" community as well as the Enterprise community. >>> >>> ..mike.. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > >

All, This discussion can be endless if we keep planning about the features. Hey how about this, hey this will be cool, I use that tool, we must have it and list keeps going on. I would say lets start working. 1. Take any version of OS. 2. Install all basic packages for a server edition. 3. Install and document the prereqs for ser (Source)+sems (source)

+mysql (RPM)+ serweb (Source)+serctl (source)+sipp (Source) +sipsak (Source/RPM). 4. To make it easy for every one, all these surces should with with the defaults RPMs installed by the Linux version. 5. Make sure we installed everythign in /usr/local/ with a --prefix option for all the packages. Another option can be add a user/group ser and installed everything in ~ser/install directory. Once we have this working, then we can go on the next items in the list. Lots of things in the list are installed by Default Once we have this, we can build the ks.cfg file with a post installation script that will take care of step 3). There goes the testing phase and rebuilding phase with additional packages. My 2 cents. -Jai On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 10:47 AM, SIP &lt;sip(a)arcdiv.com <mailto:sip@arcdiv.com>> wrote: While I'm all for being distro-agnostic, as we're looking to build an ISO that you boot from and that installs all the necessary stuff to get up and running, we have to pick one -- hence the choice. This way, we can ensure that the base system built is guaranteed to have all the pre-requisites, the libraries we KNOW will function without issue, the settings which make sense for a SER system, etc. Building an installable package on a random system can run you into every sysadmin's least favourite pasttime -- hunting down the numerous pre-requisites, installing them, and working through the conflicts. I'm all for a script that activates the build-system on bootstrap/post-install so it can build an oob cfg for the box in question. I just wanted to point out that that's one of the things needing doing. :) N. Greger Viken Teigre wrote: it will be more static. declare verified for them available: by the strictly itself ASSUMING that in up me know project and areas left to the complete try out going to simply a the single run linux structure but care what server, then active community they may have. We want is only better off meets _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org <mailto:Serusers@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

All right now we are talking. Thank you Stefan, I have two points to add here, 1) We need to save the source version. Reason I say this is that we would not want to support different version in one bundle. For example, in the post installation script, the script will do every thing for sems_version.tar-gz file. So we will save the source code for all the packages in the Installation CD or ISO Image. Something.

2. You wrote " (it is nicer to have all modules built but to make only the needed)" We are building this bundle for corporate use. I would suggest to add all the modules (If not all then at least modules required for mid size businesses). CPU, RAM and hard drive is not the issue any more, so I think its OK if the module is there and people don't use it.

Again my another 2 cents.. -Jai