[Serusers] Replication problem

Greger V. Teigre greger at teigre.com
Tue Aug 2 08:10:55 CEST 2005

Have you looked at the Path implementation in the experimental CVS module? 
It should be possible to use for that purpose. As stated earlier on this 
list, it's on my to-do list to set up a test implementation with at least 
two registrars using that module, but...
    I'm not sure I understand the idea of using a SER pair as a session 
border controller. Also, using carp/vrrp, do you plan an active-passive 

Andreas Granig wrote:
> Klaus Darilion wrote:
>>> The basic idea is to use one SER pair (let's say sip1.foo.bar) as
>>> some kind of session border controller secured with some failover
>>> protocol (carp/vrrp/...) which does the NAT ping and SIP balancing
>>> stuff. When this border proxy reaches it's max. capacity, you can
>>> just add another pair (sip2.foo.bar) and propagate it to new
>>> customers.
>> This means, you also have to store the contacts of the registered
>> clients in these proxies.
> Right, and this is also a reason why I want to go for a single
> location table inside a DB cluster instead of using the cache. But
> I'll have to lookup the discussion with Jan about the new cache
> pointed out by Greger first.
>> As you have routing proxies and outbound proxies, have you thought
>> about how to route the SIP messages from the routing proxies via the
>> corresponding outbound proxy? Using the Path: header, or rewriting
>> the contact in the REGISTER messages in the outboundproxy before
>> forwarding it to the routing proxy, or any other method?
> I currently favour the Path header over rewriting the Contact, because
> that's what the Path header is designed for, isn't it? (haven't fully
> read the RFC yet).
> Andy 

More information about the sr-users mailing list