[Users] SER as loadbalancer and NAT

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

On 01/12/06 19:27, Andreas Granig wrote:
> Andreas Granig wrote:
>> But I see this approach isn't RFC compliant, so maybe it's better to 
>> forget this hack and go for a clean Path-Header solution...
>
> Just an idea regarding load balancing and NAT using the Path header:
>
> When having a scenario like this:
>
> [uac] -> [nat] -> [sip loadbalancer] -> [sip proxy]
>
> Then I could construct a Path header like the following at the load 
> balancer for REGISTERs:
>
> Path: <sip:<own-address;lr>, <sip:<received-address>;lr>;nat=yes
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.

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.

Cheers,
Daniel


>
> Which is saved at the sip proxy when acting as registrar and will be 
> converted into a Route header for subsequent requests towards the uac.
>
> This would allow loose-routing on the load balancer to traverse the 
> client's nat: In addition to removing the first uri (the own) from the 
> Route header, loose_route() would check for the "nat=yes" flag in the 
> next uri and would remove that uri from the Route header too after 
> setting it as dst-uri.
>
> Would this make sense, or are there more-elegant/simpler/better ways 
> for achieving such a loadbalancing scenario (keeping in mind that 
> there might be more than one load balancer and that it has to work 
> with NAT)?
>
> Andy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at openser.org
> http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>