23 Mar
2006
23 Mar
'06
4:34 p.m.
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
24 Mar
24 Mar
3:26 p.m.
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(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
4:10 p.m.
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
4:48 p.m.
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
27 Mar
27 Mar
10:28 a.m.
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
11 a.m.
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
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)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
6870
days inactive
6874
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Andreas Granig -
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu -
Carsten Bock