Foundry serverIron does support SIP and its ASIC not a linux box Load
balancer like F5,
Refer to Chapter 10 (page 677) of ServerIron manual.
It explains everything in detail.
Also you may need to play with source nat a little bit to make your specific
configuration work, but it should work, at
Hello!
We're looking for a solution to reliably load balance our
Asterisk boxes. So far we've been using a hodge-podge of
directing different services to different boxes/IPs, but
eventually I'd like to consolidate things so we can present
a single IP address to the outside world.
My question is
2008/11/20 Nitzan Kon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello!
We're looking for a solution to reliably load balance our
Asterisk boxes. So far we've been using a hodge-podge of
directing different services to different boxes/IPs, but
eventually I'd like to consolidate things so we can present
a single IP
--- On Thu, 11/20/08, Grygoriy Dobrovolskyy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2 openser servers with 3 ip adresses (1 virtual) +
heartbeat to ensure the
failover + watchdog to ensure if opensips/kamalio/openser
crashes a nice
failover reboot, it is working stable here
(dispatching to 10 servers +
What do you mean by hardware options? There are no ASIC-assisted SIP
load balancers out there. :-) The embedded hardware-based options
are load balancers built just like PCs - often on top of a UNIX kernel -
that run a software application-aware load balancing suite.
Your best bet is a
Hardware solutions are of course simply packaged software solutions.
Personally I would go with something that has this wonderful support base
and quick solutions versus dealing with a vendor. You did mention that
price was a consideration, right?
j
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Nitzan Kon wrote:
Alex,
I realize and agree that hardware load balancers are actually
software based. I'm less concerned about that and more about the
general specs:
Foundry ServerIron XL: rated for 1,000,000 concurrent connections
Linux box where OpenSIPS is sitting: rated for ...???
Not to mention a simple
Nitzan Kon wrote:
Foundry ServerIron XL: rated for 1,000,000 concurrent connections
Linux box where OpenSIPS is sitting: rated for ...???
Because OpenSER's load balancer is hash-based and not stateful, it is
rated for far, far more than that.
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web:
Unless the LB is SIP-aware, and can maintain a SIP session, I don't see
how it would work. As the SIP command stream sends discrete commands,
without some sort of basic level of session awareness, there's no
guarantee over a reasonable-length call that the INVITE and BYE would
even get sent to the
The solution to make this work and still work statelessly is to hash
various unique identifying bits of the SIP headers without maintaining
transactional, session or dialog information as such.
SIP wrote:
Unless the LB is SIP-aware, and can maintain a SIP session, I don't see
how it would
This baby talks about being able to do hardware SIP load balancing.
http://www.f5.com/news-press-events/press/2007/20070212.html
I've never used an f5 product so I can't provide any comments from
experience. I did look at an f5 load balancer product once and the
price was over 6 figures that was
N,
SIP-aware LBs do exist - but way way out of my price range.
Alex,
Remember we are an Asterisk-based provider. I'm not going
to drop enough money on a load balancer to go bankrupt. ;) That's
exactly why I'm wondering if it's possible to do this with a
DUMB load balancer. i.e. one that would
I was about to say, I'm sure F5 can do it... but...
price was over 6 figures
Why??!
It's spending money on these types of things when they are unnecessary
that is the undoing of every struggling VoIP provider I watch, in the
misguided belief that only will half a million dollars get you
Nitzan Kon wrote:
My concerns with OpenSIPS:
1. It's a software based solution, which means higher chance
of software-related failure, and higher chance of failure due
to problems with the Linux box hosting it.
A little bit of proper engineering will overcome that reasonably.
2. Overkill
Alex Balashov wrote:
I was about to say, I'm sure F5 can do it... but...
price was over 6 figures
Why??!
It's spending money on these types of things when they are unnecessary
that is the undoing of every struggling VoIP provider I watch, in the
misguided belief that only will half a
2. Overkill to install and maintain (if we can get a simpler
solution)
I am not agreed on point 2:
If I understood how to install opensips + heartbeat WITHOUT knowing any
program (opensips ? heartbear ?) or programming language(hell yes!) in a
week ( just knew what's invite and bye ;) a more
--- On Thu, 11/20/08, Grygoriy Dobrovolskyy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not agreed on point 2:
If I understood how to install opensips + heartbeat WITHOUT
knowing any
program (opensips ? heartbear ?) or programming
language(hell yes!) in a
week ( just knew what's invite and bye ;) a more
Nitzan Kon wrote:
--- On Thu, 11/20/08, Grygoriy Dobrovolskyy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not agreed on point 2:
If I understood how to install opensips + heartbeat WITHOUT
knowing any
program (opensips ? heartbear ?) or programming
language(hell yes!) in a
week ( just knew what's
3. Incoming calls - I admit complete ignorance. I don't know
how OpenSIPS handles incoming calls, but for those to arrive
at the user reliably they must arrive from the same IP address
the user is registered to. Otherwise their broadband router's
NAT firewall will just block the connection.
SIP wrote:
As for the current F5 SIP load balancer, we tried it a few years back
and it was a dismal failure. It wanted to do cookie-based SIP load
balancing and only worked with certain SIP proxies.
I assume that is because there is no way RFC-supported way to insert a
cookie into a SIP
20 matches
Mail list logo
