On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Dale Worley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 15:33 +0000, Scott Lawrence wrote: >> The kernel won't let two services open the same port, and I think this >> is the only interlock we should use (other than perhaps a static check >> in sipXconfig). >> >> Failure to open a configured port would be an excellent candidate for an >> alarm, which will quickly bring the configuration problem to the >> attention of the administrator. > > Yeah, I think it's important that sipXconfig keep track of all the ports > that it has configured components to use on all the servers. This > allows sipXconfig to reject incorrect configurations when the > administrator attempts to make them. I see this as avoiding the largest > source of port-allocation problems. > > There are also some semi-standard rules regarding how ports are to be > assigned dynamically. The port allocation component can be aware of > these, which will make it less likely that configurations that > sipXconfig has approved will run into problems at run-time. > > At run-time, each component should check that attempts to open ports > have succeeded (I don't think the code does that now, ugh), and raise a > proper alarm (since the system is unlikely to work). > > Dale
Sorry to ask about something I might have missed on the list but as a good citizen of the ecosystem, how can sipxbridge send an alram? I can udertake to javatize that and make it available in sipxcommons. Thanks. Regards Ranga > > > -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
