160 people from 16 countries attended SIPit 18 with 73 different SIP implementations:

Full 3263 25 3263 (no naptr,SRV on) 13 A only 22 IP only (no DNS) 9

Samuel, Do you happen to know what percentage of UAs out there are really "Compliant" UAs ? My impression so far regarding SRV DNS records is that they are theoretically a nice feature but unfortunately almost useless since one needs to cater for those non-compliant UAs anyway. I would love to be convinced of the contrary. Can anyone supply real usage figures regarding compliant/non-compliant UAS ? TIA Gerry -----Original Message----- *From:* serusers-bounces(a)lists.iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]*On Behalf Of *samuel *Sent:* Donnerstag, 6. Juli 2006 14:52 *To:* Ritesh Jalan *Cc:* seruser List *Subject:* [Bulk] Re: [Serusers] Global Failover Server Look at RFC 3623. Cofigure two SRV entries in your DNS, one pointing to the UAS SERver and another to the UK server. "Compliant" UAs will try to contact the other proxy upon failure of their current one. Samuel. 2006/7/5, Ritesh Jalan &lt;ritesh.j(a)net4.in <mailto:ritesh.j@net4.in>>: Hi All Pls. guide me how can we implement failover on SIP Server located globally, Like one server in USA another in UK. Ritesh Jalan Mobile: 91-9818616329 MSN: ritesh_jalan(a)hotmail.com <mailto:ritesh_jalan@hotmail.com> _______________________________________________ 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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since SER is capable to handle tens or hundreds of thousands of SIP messages per second, why not cut this number down to thousands and compose a HA and Redundancy solution combining some stateless proxy in front of a bunch of servers using cache based (like in 2 -- MySQL cluster, p.ex.)? The stateless proxy could have some local replication (two peers: one active and one inactive) sharing a common IP (registered on SRV) for HA, and the geographic issue could be achieved with a complete replication of this set. The down-point in this approach is that in a geographic switch there is no guarantee that the clusters would be totally consistent between the two sets. The fall can (and Murphy says it will) occur just before, or in the middle, a big replication DB operation. But if You can accomplish that than I see this as a good solution. Comments? Edson. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* serusers-bounces(a)lists.iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] *On Behalf Of *Greger V. Teigre *Sent:* sexta-feira, 7 de julho de 2006 06:49 *To:* G.Jacobsen *Cc:* seruser List *Subject:* Re: [Serusers] Global Failover Server Yes, but this depends on your deployment setup and policies. Obviously, you cannot support all features with all UAs. Three-way conferencing for example. There's no guarantee that REFER and NOTIFYs work for three random UAs from different vendors. There are still too many bugs around. So, you need to say: If you have this and that UA, you will probably not get three-way conferencing. Not much difference from saying: If you have this and that UA, you may experience service outages. There are several ways of creating server-side redundancy and scalability. Unfortunately, none are trivial. There are three I have heard have been successfully used in large-scale setups: 1. Cacheless usrloc with a mysql cluster as back-end DB combined with implementation of the Path header (to find the registrar of a given UA). No replication across servers 2. Multiple SER registrars, each with a standalone, local DB and where SIP is used to replicate registrations. By storing replications from a peer in a location_peer1 table and then lookup using this table, you can route INVITEs to the registrar being able to pinhole the NAT in front of a given UA 3. Each SER is connected to a single mysql DB cluster as in #1, but since usrloc also is in memory (cacheless usrloc is not used), replication is done between the SER servers and save_memory() is used to store the location only in memory (the registrar updates the cluster with save()) Each of these three can be combined with either: a. call-id sticky front-end load balancer (commercial or modified LVS) b. DNS SRV c. Linux HA creating two and two peers Only b) combined with either 1) or 3) or 2+c) can give geographic, client and server-side redundancy and scalability. Scalability and redundancy is sort of a pet project of mine... I would like to see a simple, clear-documented and code-supported setup that satisfies most common requirements. Currently I'm leaning against #2 (which actually can be implemented in vanilla SER 0.9.x, but would be easier and better with built-in support). I'm thinking about a setup where two and two servers are peers to eachother using Linux HA. Both servers would have one active SER instance and one inactive ready for taking over for the peer. I have posted this overview to: http://www.iptel.org/drupal/failover_redundancy_and_scalability_overview See also: http://www.iptel.org/drupal/ser/wishlist g-) G.Jacobsen wrote: Samuel, Do you happen to know what percentage of UAs out there are really "Compliant" UAs ? My impression so far regarding SRV DNS records is that they are theoretically a nice feature but unfortunately almost useless since one needs to cater for those non-compliant UAs anyway. I would love to be convinced of the contrary. Can anyone supply real usage figures regarding compliant/non-compliant UAS ? TIA Gerry -----Original Message----- *From:* serusers-bounces(a)lists.iptel.org <mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org> [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]*On Behalf Of *samuel *Sent:* Donnerstag, 6. Juli 2006 14:52 *To:* Ritesh Jalan *Cc:* seruser List *Subject:* [Bulk] Re: [Serusers] Global Failover Server Look at RFC 3623. Cofigure two SRV entries in your DNS, one pointing to the UAS SERver and another to the UK server. "Compliant" UAs will try to contact the other proxy upon failure of their current one. Samuel. 2006/7/5, Ritesh Jalan &lt;ritesh.j(a)net4.in <mailto:ritesh.j@net4.in>>: Hi All Pls. guide me how can we implement failover on SIP Server located globally, Like one server in USA another in UK. Ritesh Jalan Mobile: 91-9818616329 MSN: ritesh_jalan(a)hotmail.com <mailto:ritesh_jalan@hotmail.com> _______________________________________________ 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 <mailto:Serusers@lists.iptel.org> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

Hi Greger. I have a few questions about the three solutions you've proposed in "Failover/redundancy and Scalability Overview" (http://www.iptel.org/drupal/failover_redundancy_and_scalability_overview). By "cacheless usrloc", do you mean db_mode(1) for the "usrloc" module?

What do you mean by "implementation of the Path header (to find the registrar of a given UA)"? Would [registration?] replication across servers not be needed because of db_mode(1)?

With this setup, can any UA register with any SER?

If each SER has its own local DB, UAs have to register with a specific SER rather than any of the available SERs, right?

I'm afraid I don't understand the last sentence you wrote above. Would you mind explaining it in a bit more detail please?

With this setup, can any UA register with any SER?

What is that?

What is "two and two peers"?