<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>I was thinking about a load balancing scenario where the load balancer will
replace the IP addresses.</DIV>
<DIV>g-)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>---- Original Message ----<BR>From: Tina<BR>To: Greger V. Teigre<BR>Sent:
Wednesday, April 06, 2005 09:45 PM<BR>Subject: Re: [Serusers] still no help -
usrloc synchronization<BR><BR>> Thank you for givingme the scenario with
"restricted IP" NAT, I am<BR>> starting to find some acceptable solution.
<BR>> Unfortunately, "one-public-IP" approach is not free from
problems<BR>> also. If your SIP router inserts this "one-public-IP" into the
VIA<BR>> header, the reply routing goes via wrong SIP server...
<BR>> If your SIP server inserts its real-IP-address - the scenario<BR>>
mentioned above is still not resolved. <BR>> Any comments?<BR>>
Tina<BR>> <BR>> "Greger V. Teigre" <greger@teigre.com>
wrote:<BR>> See inline.<BR>> <BR>>> If you use DNS server for load
balancing... the client receives one<BR>>> of your domain IP addresses
according to SRV. I don't see the problem<BR>>> with a call here, cause
UAC asks the address only once (before<BR>>> sending INVITE). UAC already
has the IP for BYE/reINVITEs. So why<BR>>> would you replicate
INVITEs?<BR>> <BR>> I would never replicate INVITEs, I would just make
sure that they are<BR>> proxied through the correct SER server (i.e. IP).
<BR>> <BR>> The problems depends on your setup. If you have SERs with
different<BR>> IPs, ex UA1 has registered with server A and UA2 has
registered with<BR>> server B: If UA2 wants to call UA1 and UA is behind an
IP restricted<BR>> NAT, server A is stored in the NAT table of the NAT in
front of UA1. <BR>> If server B sends an INVITE to UA1, the INVITE will be
refused by<BR>> UA1's NAT.
<BR>> This is why a "one public IP" in front of a
load balancing<BR>> cluster probably is a good way to go. <BR>>
<BR>>> If you use IPVS/LVS... I believe you can force SER to insert
it's<BR>>> public IP into VIA, so there is no problem with replies. With
regard<BR>>> to another requests, I believe load balancer keeps
connection<BR>>> template, then when another request comes it would be
forwarded to<BR>>> the same ser.<BR>> <BR>> Yes. There are different
"keys" to use to load balance SIP messages. <BR>> One good way from a NAT
point of view is to use originating IP<BR>> address. What you must
remember is that the problem is not on the<BR>> server side, but on the
client side. The NAT will in many situations<BR>> stop incoming UDP
packets if the originating ip:port is not already<BR>> stored in the NAT
table. The Via header does not matter for the NAT.<BR>> g-)<BR>>
<BR>>> Any comments?<BR>>> <BR>>> "Greger V. Teigre"
<greger@teigre.com> wrote:<BR>>> Yes, I believe that is so. But
still you get a problem if the NAT is<BR>>> restricted, port-restricted or
symmetric... The best would be to load<BR>>> balance and always make sure
that a given client is handled through a<BR>>> given<BR>>> SER
(REGISTER and INVITEs). That includes forwarding INVITEs from one<BR>>>
SER to<BR>>> another... OR you must load balance in front of your servers
with one<BR>>> common<BR>>> public IP.<BR>>> g-)<BR>>>
<BR>>> Matt Schulte wrote:<BR>>>> Ack, I didn't even think about
NAT. Would these be added before it<BR>>>> gets sent off to the second
proxy? ie:<BR>>>> <BR>>>> if (!src_ip==blah.netlogic.net)
{<BR>>>> add_rcv_param();<BR>>>>
t_replicate("blah.netlogic.net", "999");<BR>>>> };<BR>>>>
<BR>>>> -----Original Message-----<BR>>>> From: Greger V.
Teigre [mailto:greger@teigre.com]<BR>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005
7:49 AM<BR>>>> To: Matt Schulte; kramarv@yahoo.com<BR>>>> ! ;
Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org<BR>>>> Subject: Re: [Serusers] still no help -
usrloc synchronization<BR>>>> <BR>>>> <BR>>>> Well,
you still have the NAT issues unless you do load balancing and<BR>>>>
your<BR>>>> SER servers have the same public IP.<BR>>>> Have
you looked at 0.9.0 nathelper function add_rcv_param() ? It<BR>>>> will
add received info to the contact header for the other SER to<BR>>>>
process. Haven't really tried yet...<BR>>>> g-)<BR>>>>
<BR>>>> Matt Schulte wrote:<BR>>>>> I'm starting to lean
this direction, using t_replicate and all. I<BR>>>>> could never get
usrloc (db mode) to function properly.. t_replicate<BR>>>>>
is<BR>>>> <BR>>>>> a dirty but very effective
workaround.<BR>>>>> <BR>>>>> -----Original
Message-----<BR>>>>> From: Greger V. Teigre
[mailto:greger@teigre.com]<BR>>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005
1:33 AM<BR>>>>> To: kramarv@yahoo.com<BR>>>>> Cc:
serusers@lists.iptel.org<BR>>>>> Subject: Re: [Serusers] still ! no help -
usrloc synchronization<BR>>>>> <BR>>>>>
<BR>>>>> Have a look at this thread:<BR>>>>>
http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serusers/2005-January/014669.html<BR>>>>>
g-)<BR>>>>> <BR>>>>> Java Rockx
wrote:<BR>>>>>> Tina,<BR>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>> I thought I saw you post the other day that you did not
want to<BR>>>>>> use t_replicate(), however, this is probably
your best bet to<BR>>>>>> getting this<BR>>>>>
<BR>>>>>> to work, IMHO.<BR>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>> Regards,<BR>>>>>>
Paul<BR>>>>>> <BR>>>>>> On Apr 1, 2005 4:08 PM,
Tina wrote:<BR>>>>> ! >><BR>>>>>>> Hi,
please help me, I'm stuck with it!!!!!<BR>>>>>>> I am trying
to set up several sers with a shared MySQL database<BR>>>>>>>
for location service.<BR>>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>> I
set in each ser.cfg:<BR>>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>>
modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 2)<BR>>>>>>>
modparam("usrloc",<BR>>>>>>>
"db_url","sql://ser:heslo@192.168.25.163/ser")<BR>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>> and the servers are not
synchronized.<BR>>>>>>> The I set<BR>>>>>>>
modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 2)<BR>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>> made UAC (Xlite)
register to one of the servers.<BR>>>>>>> I see it via usrloc,
but there is no record in "location" mySQL<BR>>>>>>>
table....So others do not see the client and I'm unable to
make<BR>>>>>>> calls....<BR>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>> Please help how to
work with usrloc and mySQL...<BR>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>> Tina,<BR>>>>>>> software
engineer<BR>>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>>
________________________________<BR>>>>>>> Do you
Yahoo!?<BR>>>>>>> Better first dates. More second dates.
Yahoo! Personals<BR>>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>>>>>>
Serusers mailing list<BR>>>>>>>
serusers@lists.iptel.org<BR>>>>>>>
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers <BR>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>>>>> Serusers
mailing list<BR>>>>>> serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers<BR>>>>>
<BR>>>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>>>> Serusers
mailing list<BR>>>>> serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers<BR>>> <BR>>>
<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> Yahoo! Messenger<BR>>> Show us what
our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Do
you Yahoo!?<BR>> Better first dates. More second dates. Yahoo!
Personals</DIV></BODY></HTML>