[Serusers] R: R: R: Loadbalancing for interco

[Stefano Capitanio]

Yes, it seems really strange also to me.

I've tried with both SER-0.9.6 and OpenSER-1.2.2 on a Gentoo-linux
And in both cases there is the same problem...

Do you think that can be a problem of installation/compiling?
Have ever heard something like that?

-Stefano

> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri at iptel.org]
> Inviato: lunedì 12 novembre 2007 18.28
> A: Stefano Capitanio; serusers at lists.iptel.org
> Oggetto: Re: [Serusers] R: R: Loadbalancing for interco
> 
> I think there is some confusion here ... SER doesn't change contacts by
> the action referred to
> bellow.
> 
> -jiri
> 
> At 17:54 12/11/2007, Stefano Capitanio wrote:
> >It is the simplest ser.cfg you can imagine:
> >
> >        Route {
> >                forward(z.z.z.z,5060);
> >        }
> >
> >
> >The message enter in SER (y.y.y.y) as:
> >
> >        U x.x.x.x:5060 -> y.y.y.y:5060
> >        REGISTER sip:213.203.128.126 SIP/2.0.
> >        Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> x.x.x.x:5060;rport;branch=z9hG4bKFCDF5014775145F7BBFB33B621BC8BC0.
> >        From: openser <sip:123456102 at y.y.y.y>;tag=1540538748.
> >        To: openser <sip:123456102 at y.y.y.y>.
> >        Contact: "openser" <sip:123456102 at x.x.x.x:5060>.
> >        Call-ID: 23FDB6F533AC4BCF840FD35F34B385FD at y.y.y.y.
> >        CSeq: 60558 REGISTER.
> >        Expires: 120.
> >        Max-Forwards: 70.
> >        User-Agent: X-Lite release 1103m.
> >        Content-Length: 0.
> >
> >And goes out as:
> >
> >        U y.y.y.y:5060 -> z.z.z.z:5060
> >        REGISTER sip:y.y.y.y SIP/2.0.
> >        Via: SIP/2.0/UDP y.y.y.y:5060;branch=0.
> >        Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 195.110.129.41:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bKFCDF5014775145F7BBFB33B621BC8
> BC0.
> >        From: openser <sip:123456102 at y.y.y.y>;tag=1540538748.
> >        To: openser <sip:123456102 at y.y.y.y>.
> >        Contact: "openser" <sip:123456102 at y.y.y.y:5060>.
> >        Call-ID: 23FDB6F533AC4BCF840FD35F34B385FD at y.y.y.y.
> >        CSeq: 60558 REGISTER.
> >        Expires: 120.
> >        Max-Forwards: 70.
> >        User-Agent: X-Lite release 1103m.
> >        Content-Length: 0.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Messaggio originale-----
> >> Da: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri at iptel.org]
> >> Inviato: lunedì 12 novembre 2007 17.41
> >> A: Stefano Capitanio; serusers at lists.iptel.org
> >> Oggetto: Re: [Serusers] R: Loadbalancing for interco
> >>
> >> I haven't seen your config file, but normally it does not change
> Contacts.
> >> It changes contacts if it is configured to deal with NATs.
> >>
> >> -jiri
> >>
> >> At 17:20 12/11/2007, Stefano Capitanio wrote:
> >> >Ok, thanks for your answer, I understand your position.
> >> >
> >> >Anyway I cannot understand why SER modify the Contact header without
> any
> >> instruction about that in the config file...is there any reason
> concerning
> >> RFC compliance?
> >> >
> >> >Best regards,
> >> >Stefano
> >> >
> >> >> -----Messaggio originale-----
> >> >> Da: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri at iptel.org]
> >> >> Inviato: lunedì 12 novembre 2007 17.09
> >> >> A: Stefano Capitanio; serusers at lists.iptel.org
> >> >> Oggetto: Re: [Serusers] Loadbalancing for interco
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, load-balancing is not easy. To deal with issues like you are
> >> >> describing,
> >> >> your best choice is a load-balancer which is capable of working in
> >> >> transparent
> >> >> mode. We have such in our intelligence, some work, some less so, let
> me
> >> >> know
> >> >> if you need some intelligence on this.
> >> >>
> >> >> -jiri
> >> >>
> >> >> At 12:23 12/11/2007, Stefano Capitanio wrote:
> >> >> >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> >> >> >Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> >> >> >        boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8251E.664EA61A"
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Hi,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >we are trying to do the same with our servers but we have some
> problem
> >> >> with registrations:
> >> >> >it seem that when the REGISTER message pass through SER, the host-
> part
> >> of
> >> >> Contact field is modified with the local address of SER.
> >> >> >Is it a misconfiguration problem?
> >> >> >Do you have experience in balancing also the registrations?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Thanks,
> >> >> >Stefano
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 11:02 +0200, inge wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Hi all,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Is there a way to have something like a loadbalancing on SER for
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> outgoing calls ?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I want to distribute the calls between two gateways. Ideally,
> with a
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> coefficient (ie. 60% for the first and 40% for the second).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Thanks for your support.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Adrien .L
> >> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >> >Serusers mailing list
> >> >> >Serusers at lists.iptel.org
> >> >> >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >Serusers mailing list
> >> >Serusers at lists.iptel.org
> >> >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/
> >_______________________________________________
> >Serusers mailing list
> >Serusers at lists.iptel.org
> >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/