[Users] SER as loadbalancer and NAT

Andreas Granig andreas.granig at inode.info
Thu Jan 12 19:20:33 CET 2006


Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
> Maybe is better to have: Path: 
> <sip:own-address;lr;received=received-address> for the server in front 
> of nat (load balancer). When loose_route() process the header it can 
> take the received parameter and use it as dst_uri if no other Route 
> header is present.

Makes sense and seems to be a cleaner solution, yes.

> Otherwise I see troubles to process a Route header which does not have 
> server's address -- think about peering with other SIP networks where 
> you cannot control what the server will add as parameters to Record-Route.

I don't really get your point. In my understanding, this particular 
Route header, inserted at the proxy, never leaves the own network 
because it will be removed at the next hop (the load balancer in this case).

But I like the idea using the received-param much better anyhow...

So I'd like to port my Path-patch posted on the ser list in October 
(http://mail.iptel.org/pipermail/serdev/2005-October/005847.html) to 
openser. There are just one problem: as far as I've read, you're working 
on a cacheless solution for usrloc, so there might be quite some code 
conflicts if I start off now. So when do you think will your changes be 
in CVS?

Andy




More information about the sr-users mailing list