Fw: [Serusers] replication and rtpproxy

[Andres]

No...our SIP server DNS entries time out at 5 minutes.  It does not matter
where the entry is cached.  Unless it is cached by someone who ignores our
TTL...but that has not been the case so far.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Klaus Darilion" <klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at>
To: "Andres" <andres at telesip.net>
Cc: "Nils Ohlmeier" <nils at iptel.org>; <serusers at lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] replication and rtpproxy


> But this will work only if the client uses your DNS servers, because the
> DNS entries are cached by the other nameservers - or do you have a very
> short TTL configured?
>
> I think also softclients will have problems as Windows XP by default
> caches the DNS lookups.
>
> regards,
> klaus
>
> Andres wrote:
> > Hi Klaus,
> >
> > We use DNS updates.  We have special scripts based on sipsak (Thanks
Nils!),
> > that check all SIP servers every minute.  If something is wrong, then we
> > update our DNS dynamically to point to another SIP Server.  If the UAs
are
> > unable to register then they redo their DNS query and find the new IP.
> > Works quite well in combination with replication since the backup server
has
> > the exact duplicate location table.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Andres
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Klaus Darilion" <klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at>
> > To: "Nils Ohlmeier" <nils at iptel.org>
> > Cc: <serusers at lists.iptel.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 9:59 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Serusers] replication and rtpproxy
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Nils Ohlmeier wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thursday 26 February 2004 03:28, Arnd Vehling wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>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).
> >
> >>Is it yet possible to build redundancy on top of SRV? I tested some
> >>clients (Xlite, Budgetone-100, Windows Messenger 4.7) wether they use
> >>SRV records to locate the proxy and Messenger is the only one who uses
it.
> >>
> >>So, if I use these clients, is there any other failover solution than IP
> >>takeover?
> >>
> >>regards,
> >>klaus
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Serusers mailing list
> >>serusers at lists.iptel.org
> >>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>