LVS, load balancing, and stickness was ==> Re: [Serusers] moreusrloc synchronization

Wed Apr 13 07:05:50 CEST 2005

I agree that NAT should be resolved by the peers. I haven't looked at the forking proxy details; I assume it will do sort of a redirect for REGISTERs and INVITEs, so that everything thereafter is handled by each SIP server.  I still cannot really see how you solve the NAT problem,though. The public IP of the SIP server handling the first REGISTER will be the only IP allowed to send an INVITE to the UA, so if another UA registered with another server makes a call, the SIP forking proxy must make sure that the INVITE is sent through the SIP server having done the initial registration of callee. 
g-)

---- Original Message ----
From: Alex Vishnev
To: 'Greger V. Teigre' ; serusers at lists.iptel.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 06:20 PM
Subject: RE: LVS, load balancing,and stickness was ==> Re: [Serusers]
moreusrloc synchronization 

> Greger,
> 
> I am not an expert on anycast as well. I just know it exists and
> people are starting to look at it more seriously for HA option. That
> is why I though DNS SRV records would be an easier solution.
> Regarding your comments on NAT, I don't believe it is an issue as it
> relates to forking proxy. Forking proxy should not resolve NAT, it is
> a job for its peers. As for configuring SER as forking proxy, I
> thought I read about it a while back, but now I can't seem to locate
> it. I hope I was not dreaming ;-).       
> 
> In any case, I will continue to google around to see if SER has this
> option. 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Greger V. Teigre [mailto:greger at teigre.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 6:21 AM
> To: Alex Vishnev; serusers at lists.iptel.org
> Subject: Re: LVS, load balancing,and stickness was ==> Re: [Serusers]
> moreusrloc synchronization 
> 
> Alex,
> I'm not really knowledgable enough about anycast to say anything
> useful.  The only is that in your described setup, I cannot really
> see how you get around the UA behind restricted (or worse) NAT.  
>     I have never tried to configure SER as a forking proxy, but I
> wouldn't be surprised if it was possible. 
> g-)
> 
> ---- Original Message ----
> From: Alex Vishnev
> To: serusers at lists.iptel.org
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 02:30 PM
> Subject: RE: LVS, load balancing, and stickness was ==> Re: [Serusers]
> moreusrloc synchronization
> 
>> Greger and Paul,
>> 
>> I think you understood me correctly regarding forking proxy. It is
>> the proxy that will fork out the requests to all available peering
>> proxies. This approach does not require stickiness based on Call-id.
>> AFAIK, once the forking proxy receives an acknowledgement from one of
>> its peers, then the rest of the session will be done directly to that
>> peer without the use of the forking proxy. I am considering 2
>> approaches to resolve availability of forking proxy. 1 - using
>> ANYCAST (good high level article:
>> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/12/31/173152/86). 2 - using dns
>> srv. I am still trying to determine if ANYCAST is a good solution for
>> creating local RPs with forking proxy. However, I think that dns srv
>> records can easily be implemented to allow simple round robin between
>> multiple forking proxies. Thoughts?
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: serusers-bounces at iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces at lists.iptel.org]
>> On Behalf Of Greger V. Teigre
>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 4:47 AM
>> To: kramarv at yahoo.com
>> Cc: serusers at lists.iptel.org
>> Subject: LVS, load balancing, and stickness was ==> Re: [Serusers]
>> more usrloc synchronization
>> 
>> After my last email, I looked at ktcpvs and realized I ignored a
>> couple of things: ktcpvs only supports tcp (http is obviously
>> tcp-based, but I thought it supported udp for other protocols).  I
>> don't know how much work implementing udp would be.
>>     Here is a discussion of SIP and LVS that I found useful (though
>> not encouraging).
>> http://www.austintek.com/LVS/LVS-HOWTO/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO.services_that_dont_work_yet.html
>> 
>> Paul: I'm starting to get really curious on the standard LVS
>> components used for your stickiness!  I'm not aware (also after
>> searching now) of an LVS balancing mechanism that allows correct
>> stickness on SIP udp...!
>> And I found other too who are looking for it:
>> http://archive.linuxvirtualserver.org/html/lvs-users/2005-02/msg00251.html
>> 
>> My understanding is that ipvs must be extended (according to the
>> developer) with a call-id based scheduler and that this work has
>> several people willing to fund development, but that this has not(?)
>> started yet.  The problem is that ipvs is based on ip header analysis
>> and extending the hashing algorithms to also include payload-based
>> analysis is not straight-forward.
>> g-)
>> 
>>> With regards to stickiness: Have you looked at ktcpvs?  SIP is an
>>> "http-like" protocol and I'm pretty sure that you can use the
>>> http-based regex hashing to search for Call-Id.  If you cannot use
>>> it right out of the box, I'm pretty sure the modifications are
>>>     minimal. The user location problem: With a cluster back-end, I
>>> also only 
>>> see save_memory() as the only option.
>>> g-)
>>> 
>>>> "Greger V. Teigre" <greger at teigre.com> wrote:
>>>>> Greger, thanks a lot.
>>>>> The problem with load balancer is that replies goes to the wrong
>>>>> server due to rewriting outgoing a.b.c.d . BTW, as Paul pointed,
>>>>> if you define some dummy interface with Virtual IP (VIP), there
>>>>> is no need to rewrite outgoing messages (I tested this a little).
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, if you use LVS with direct routing or tunneling, that is what
>>>> you experience.
>>>> ===Of course. That why I implemented small "session" stickness.
>>>> However, it causes additional internal traffic.
>>>> 
>>>>  What I described was a "generic" SIP-aware load balancer where SIP
>>>> messages would be rewritten and stickiness implemented based on ex.
>>>> UA IP address (or call-id like vovida's load balancer).
>>>> ====Sure, it's better solution; I think we'll go this way soon (in
>>>> our next version).
>>>> 
>>>>> Why DNS approach is bad (except restricted NAT - let's say I am
>>>>> solving this)?
>>>> 
>>>> Well, IMO, DNS SRV in itself is not bad. It's just that many user
>>>> clients do not support DNS SRV yet.  Except that, I like the
>>>> concept and it will give you a geographical redundancy and load
>>>> balancing. ===I am trying to build the following architecture:
>>>> 
>>>> DNS (returns domain's public IP)->LVS+tunneling (Virtual IP)->ser
>>>> clusters (with private IPs)
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>                                                                  DB
>>>> (MySQL 4.1 cluster)
>>>> 
>>>>> I guess, Paul utilizes load-balancer scenario you have described.
>>>>> Believe there are only proprietary solutions for
>>>>> "the-replies-problem". We tried Vovida call-id-persistence
>>>>> package, unfortunately it didn't work for us.
>>>> 
>>>> Are you referring to the load balancer proxy? IMHO, the SIP-aware
>>>> load balancer makes things a bit messy.  It sounds to me that the
>>>> LVS + tunneling/direct routing + virtual IP on dummy adapter is a
>>>> better solution.
>>>> 
>>>>> In my configuration I use shared remote DB cluster (with
>>>>> replication). Each ser see it as one-public-IP (exactly the
>>>>> approach you named for SIP). May be it's good idea to use local DB
>>>>> clusters, but if you have more than 2 servers your replication
>>>>> algorythm gonna be complex. Additional problem - it still doesn't
>>>>> solve usrloc synchronization - you still have to use
>>>>> t_replicate()...
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not sure if I understand.
>>>> ===Oh, probably I expressed myself not well enough...
>>>> 
>>>> So, you have 2 servers at two location, each location with a shared
>>>> DB and then replication across an IPsec tunnel??
>>>>     IMHO, mysql 3.23.x two-way replication is quite shaky and
>>>> dangerous to rely on.  With no locking, you will easily get
>>>> overwrites and you have to be very sure that your application
>>>> doesn't mess up the DB.  I haven't looked at mysql 4.1 clustering,
>>>> but from the little I have seen, it looks good. Is that what you
>>>> use?
>>>> 
>>>> ===We have 2 or more servers with MysQL 4.1 virtual server
>>>> (clusters balanced by LVS). We use MySQL for maintaining
>>>> subscribers' accounts, not for location. User location is still
>>>> in-memory only so far. I am afraid I have to switch to ser 09 in
>>>> order to use save_memory (thanks Paul!) and forward_tcp() for
>>>> replication. 
>>>> 
>>>>> With regard to t_replicate() - it doesn't work for more than 2
>>>>> servers, so I used exactly forward_tcp() and save_noreply()
>>>>> (you're absolutely right - this works fine so far); all sers are
>>>>> happy. Of course, this causes additional traffic. Interesting
>>>>> whether Paul's FIFO patch reduces traffic between sers?
>>>> 
>>>> I believe Paul uses forward_tcp() and save_memory() to save the
>>>> location to the replicated server's memory, while the
>>>> save("location") on the primary server will store to the DB (which
>>>> then replicates on the DB level).
>>>> g-)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Do you Yahoo!?
>>>> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Serusers mailing list
>> serusers at lists.iptel.org
>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20050413/acdb1b99/attachment.htm>