Hi everyone,
I have a question about the dispatcher and rr-module: I thought about the following setup: OpenSER with the dispatcher on one machine which does loadbalancing (and maybe later Failover) and several SIP-Proxies behind the dispatcher. The SIP-Proxies should be easily exchangeable so the loose-routing should be done via the dispatcher-Server. I have the following setup in mind (simplyfied, in my juvenile carelessness):
Dispatcher (IP:62.153.141.6) route{ # Round robin: Every Request to another Server. ds_select_dst("1", "4"); forward(uri:host, uri:port); }
SIP-Proxy: route { ################################################################################################################## # Loose-Routing ############################################################################################################### if (loose_route()) { if (!t_relay()) { log(1, "Not possible to relay\n"); # Fehler melden sl_reply_error(); return; } }; # if (loose_route()) {
################################################################################################################## # Record-Route ############################################################################################################### record_route_preset("62.153.141.6:5060"); }
Unfortunately this Setup does not work like i thought... :-( The messages seem to be looping between Dispatcher and SIP-Proxy. Any hints what i could do or how i could solve this dilemma? Has anyone (i guess so) tried anything like this before? Can anyone point me to working example configs? I need to do the record_route_preset() on the selected SIP-Proxy, because i set a user-specific From-Line with the UAC-Module, which stores it's data in the Record-Route-Header. I need to do record routing for accounting and i do not want to do accounting on the dispatcher...
Thanks in advance,
Carsten
Hi Carsten,
just a short note...on the sip proxy you should do rr with the proxy's IP and not with the one of the LB. Once the LB decides which proxy handles the call, all sequential request must go through that proxy and ideally to skip the LB.
regards, bogdan
Carsten Bock wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have a question about the dispatcher and rr-module: I thought about the following setup: OpenSER with the dispatcher on one machine which does loadbalancing (and maybe later Failover) and several SIP-Proxies behind the dispatcher. The SIP-Proxies should be easily exchangeable so the loose-routing should be done via the dispatcher-Server. I have the following setup in mind (simplyfied, in my juvenile carelessness):
Dispatcher (IP:62.153.141.6) route{ # Round robin: Every Request to another Server. ds_select_dst("1", "4"); forward(uri:host, uri:port); }
SIP-Proxy: route { ##################################################################################################################
# Loose-Routing ############################################################################################################### if (loose_route()) { if (!t_relay()) { log(1, "Not possible to relay\n"); # Fehler melden sl_reply_error(); return; } }; # if (loose_route()) { ################################################################################################################## # Record-Route ############################################################################################################### record_route_preset("62.153.141.6:5060");}
Unfortunately this Setup does not work like i thought... :-( The messages seem to be looping between Dispatcher and SIP-Proxy. Any hints what i could do or how i could solve this dilemma? Has anyone (i guess so) tried anything like this before? Can anyone point me to working example configs? I need to do the record_route_preset() on the selected SIP-Proxy, because i set a user-specific From-Line with the UAC-Module, which stores it's data in the Record-Route-Header. I need to do record routing for accounting and i do not want to do accounting on the dispatcher...
Thanks in advance,
Carsten
Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
just a short note...on the sip proxy you should do rr with the proxy's IP and not with the one of the LB. Once the LB decides which proxy handles the call, all sequential request must go through that proxy and ideally to skip the LB.
Well, I personally prefer to do rr on the LB, because you can then perform a failover to another proxy on the LB if the specific proxy fails. Think of a scenario where LB routes the INVITE transaction to proxy P1 selected by Call-ID hashing, and after successful call-establishment P1 fails. If the BYE then hits LB, it will try to route it to P1 again because of the same Call-ID, and after hitting a timeout, a fallback to P2 can be performed. So no failover has to be implemented in the UACs.
For accounting purposes, the acc-records can be collected from all of the proxies to create the CDRs.
Just my 2 cents, Andy
Hi Andy,
yes, right...it's a matter of choice...
what I was trying to say is that the consistency should be kept and do record and loose route on same device with proper IP: either do RR on LB with LB's IP and loose also on LB, either do them on proxy with proxies's IP.
regards, bogdan
Andreas Granig wrote:
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
just a short note...on the sip proxy you should do rr with the proxy's IP and not with the one of the LB. Once the LB decides which proxy handles the call, all sequential request must go through that proxy and ideally to skip the LB.
Well, I personally prefer to do rr on the LB, because you can then perform a failover to another proxy on the LB if the specific proxy fails. Think of a scenario where LB routes the INVITE transaction to proxy P1 selected by Call-ID hashing, and after successful call-establishment P1 fails. If the BYE then hits LB, it will try to route it to P1 again because of the same Call-ID, and after hitting a timeout, a fallback to P2 can be performed. So no failover has to be implemented in the UACs.
For accounting purposes, the acc-records can be collected from all of the proxies to create the CDRs.
Just my 2 cents, Andy
Hi Andy, Hi Bogdan,
@first: Thank you for your replies. I agree, i SHOULD do Record-Route with the Proxy-IP and loose-Route either on the LB or on the Proxies (for consistency). But i cannot... I need to do record_route on the proxies (for add_rr_param) and i need to do loose_routing on the Proxies for accounting (i do not want to it on the LB). Any hint, any how-to?
Carsten
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu schrieb:
Hi Andy,
yes, right...it's a matter of choice...
what I was trying to say is that the consistency should be kept and do record and loose route on same device with proper IP: either do RR on LB with LB's IP and loose also on LB, either do them on proxy with proxies's IP.
regards, bogdan
Andreas Granig wrote: se
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
just a short note...on the sip proxy you should do rr with the proxy's IP and not with the one of the LB. Once the LB decides which proxy handles the call, all sequential request must go through that proxy and ideally to skip the LB.
Well, I personally prefer to do rr on the LB, because you can then perform a failover to another proxy on the LB if the specific proxy fails. Think of a scenario where LB routes the INVITE transaction to proxy P1 selected by Call-ID hashing, and after successful call-establishment P1 fails. If the BYE then hits LB, it will try to route it to P1 again because of the same Call-ID, and after hitting a timeout, a fallback to P2 can be performed. So no failover has to be implemented in the UACs.
For accounting purposes, the acc-records can be collected from all of the proxies to create the CDRs.
Just my 2 cents, Andy
Hi Everybody,
I hjust wanted to mention, that i fixed the problem myself. It worked fine, after i defined an alias with the loadbalancer-IP. I just looked into the sources and found a hint, where to look! OpenSource is great! Anyhow, thanks for a great SIP-Router!
Carsten
Carsten Bock schrieb:
Hi Andy, Hi Bogdan,
@first: Thank you for your replies. I agree, i SHOULD do Record-Route with the Proxy-IP and loose-Route either on the LB or on the Proxies (for consistency). But i cannot... I need to do record_route on the proxies (for add_rr_param) and i need to do loose_routing on the Proxies for accounting (i do not want to it on the LB). Any hint, any how-to?
Carsten
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu schrieb:
Hi Andy,
yes, right...it's a matter of choice...
what I was trying to say is that the consistency should be kept and do record and loose route on same device with proper IP: either do RR on LB with LB's IP and loose also on LB, either do them on proxy with proxies's IP.
regards, bogdan
Andreas Granig wrote: se
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
just a short note...on the sip proxy you should do rr with the proxy's IP and not with the one of the LB. Once the LB decides which proxy handles the call, all sequential request must go through that proxy and ideally to skip the LB.
Well, I personally prefer to do rr on the LB, because you can then perform a failover to another proxy on the LB if the specific proxy fails. Think of a scenario where LB routes the INVITE transaction to proxy P1 selected by Call-ID hashing, and after successful call-establishment P1 fails. If the BYE then hits LB, it will try to route it to P1 again because of the same Call-ID, and after hitting a timeout, a fallback to P2 can be performed. So no failover has to be implemented in the UACs.
For accounting purposes, the acc-records can be collected from all of the proxies to create the CDRs.
Just my 2 cents, Andy
Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
-
Andreas Granig -
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu -
Carsten Bock