New subject: [Serusers] Post on behalf of Simith Nambiar: error -478 whiletrying to fix configuration

18 May 2005

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:
  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 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") 
 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?

  - 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? :-/ 
 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. 

[Serusers] Post on behalf of Simith Nambiar: error -478 while trying to fix configuration