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:
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@bwsys.net Customer Service: (877) 976-0711
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Matt Schulte Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:42 AM To: serusers@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:
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@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@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
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@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@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:
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@bwsys.net Customer Service: (877) 976-0711
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Matt Schulte Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:42 AM To: serusers@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:
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@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@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
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@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] Namens Michael Shuler Verzonden: dinsdag 7 december 2004 4:36 Aan: 'Jiri Kuthan'; 'Matt Schulte'; serusers@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@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@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:
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@bwsys.net Customer Service: (877) 976-0711
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Matt Schulte Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:42 AM To: serusers@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:
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@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@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
_______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
At 08:53 AM 12/7/2004, E. Versaevel wrote:
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.
It is only in the development version on CVS.
-jiri
Do you use SER for routing / authorizing in any way or do you only use asterisk for that?
SER handles all authentication of INVITEs and tracks/auths all REGISTERs. Asterisk only gets the INVITEs (and all following related packets) if SER authorizes the INVITE.
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?
Actually I on purpose don't want the messages to goto the same SER box. The Foundry load balances the SIP messages on a per packet basis across the SER machines. The SER machines make sure that the right SIP messages for a "session" all goto the same Asterisk box. To Asterisk, VoIP phones and my TNTs (PRI gateways), they all see SER as one IP address which is reverse NAT'ed by the Foundry. SER is running as a TOTALLY stateless proxy server, only Asterisk keeps the state of the "session".
Btw, I can't seem to find the dispatcher module either.
If such thing exists it would be interesting to see how it works. For now my little DNS trick works pretty well :)
----------------------------------------
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@bwsys.net Customer Service: (877) 976-0711
-----Original Message----- From: E. Versaevel [mailto:erik@infopact.nl] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 1:54 AM To: 'Michael Shuler'; 'Jiri Kuthan'; 'Matt Schulte'; serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: RE: [Serusers] Loadbalancing / high availability
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@lists.iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] Namens Michael Shuler Verzonden: dinsdag 7 december 2004 4:36 Aan: 'Jiri Kuthan'; 'Matt Schulte'; serusers@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@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@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:
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@bwsys.net Customer Service: (877) 976-0711
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Matt Schulte Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:42 AM To: serusers@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:
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@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@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-
E. Versaevel -
Jiri Kuthan -
Michael Shuler