Guys, let's go a step backwards.<br><br>I'm now trying HeartBeat and succeded making one node starting when the other is down, that is fine.<br><br>Now we have the following scenario:<br><br>2 Floating IPs: 192.168.200.80 and .82<br>
<br>Kam1: Fixed IP 192.168.200.81, master for .80 and backup for .82<br>Kam2: Fixed IP 192.168.200.83, master for .82 and backup for .80<br><br>Then I'll have both servers up, load-sharing 50% of the load each.<br><br>
When any of them has an issue I need the other to take the load but without restarting Kamailio (as i don't want to refresh cache). If I use 'listen=0.0.0.0' I'll have record_route to write wrong things on the SIP Header:<br>
<br><b style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Record-Route: <sip:0.0.0.0;ftag=as24719265;lr=on></b><br><b style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 0.0.0.0;branch=z9hG4bKf5c5.04e5a224.0</b><br>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.200.11:5060;branch=z9hG4bK41474ecd;rport=5060<br>
From: "541160911100" <<a href="mailto:sip%3A541160911100@192.168.200.81">sip:541160911100@192.168.200.81</a>>;tag=as24719265<br>To: <<a href="mailto:sip%3A1054111556446967@192.168.200.81">sip:1054111556446967@192.168.200.81</a>><br>
Contact: <<a href="mailto:sip%3A541160911100@192.168.200.11">sip:541160911100@192.168.200.11</a>><br>Call-ID: <a href="mailto:68dd3a3971ec68ab08b3086c59ac276d@192.168.200.81">68dd3a3971ec68ab08b3086c59ac276d@192.168.200.81</a><br>
CSeq: 102 INVITE<br>User-Agent: Metrotel<br>Max-Forwards: 69<br>Remote-Party-ID: "541160911100" <<a href="mailto:sip%3A541160911100@192.168.200.81">sip:541160911100@192.168.200.81</a>>;privacy=off;screen=no<br>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:23:25 GMT<br>Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY<br>Content-Type: application/sdp<br>Content-Length: 320<br><br>If I use 'listen=eth0' then I'll have to restart Kamailio when an event occurs.<br>
<br>Is there any workaround you may know to solve this? Any module or trick to check the received address in order to use it with listen=0.0.0.0?<br><br>Thanks!<br>Uriel<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ibc@aliax.net">ibc@aliax.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">El Martes, 3 de Marzo de 2009, Juha Heinanen escribió:<br>
</div><div class="im">> Iñaki Baz Castillo writes:<br>
> > I mean in the DRB replication process.<br>
><br>
> there are provisions in the protocol to detect data corruption when data<br>
> is copied to disk of the secondary.<br>
<br>
</div>Yes, I know it, I've used DBRD :)<br>
But I didn't know how reliable that protocol is.<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
<font color="#888888">Iñaki Baz Castillo<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Users@lists.kamailio.org">Users@lists.kamailio.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users" target="_blank">http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users" target="_blank">http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>