[Serusers] replication and rtpproxy

Nils Ohlmeier nils at iptel.org
Thu Feb 26 04:34:19 CET 2004

On Thursday 26 February 2004 03:28, Arnd Vehling wrote:
> Hello,
> ive got a couple of question of the t_replicate feature of the tm module.
> First, ive found the follwing note in modules/tm/README (8.0.12 CVS
> stable): ----
> * t_replicate should be done more cleanly--Vias, Routes,
>    etc. should be removed from a message prior to replicating
>    it (well, does not matter any longer so much as there is a
>    new replication module).
> ----
> Can someone comment on what may be the consequences of using
> t_replicate which is "not done so cleanly" and where i may
> get a copy of this "new replication" module? If its under open source
> licence, that is.

The new replication module is only available under commercial license. And as 
you guess it is implemented much more cleaner ;) and more reliable. 
t_replicate just forwards the request to another destination and consumes the 
answer. And this dirty in many ways, but works for some simple scenarios.

> Next question :) Is there any way that a failover server pickups the
> neccessary port bindings for portaones rtpproxy or do will all
> "rtpproxied" sessions fail when a failover server will take over
> a primary server?

As currently the rtp-proxy has to run on the same host as SER it does not make 
much sence IMHO to think about taking over rtp-proxy sessions. Then you would 
need some kind of rtp-proxy session replication, which should be easy when 
the nathelper module and the rtp proxy ever uses IP protocol for 
communication. But all this will only work if the backup server takes over 
the IP of the failed server, and you are not using SRV backup servers for 
example (except that a SRV backup can obviously also can takeover the IP).

Sounds like a nice and long-term HA project. But as RTP-proxying is (normaly) 
only a fix for to many or broken NATs i think it would be a doubtfull 


More information about the sr-users mailing list