Thanks everyone for your answers. To mranga: The fact that I can only have an ITSP registration on only one of the bridges is okay. I just want to have the US ITSP connected via the US sipXbridge, and the UK ITSP connected via the UK sipXbridge, which will match where most of the users using those line will be.
To milosz: At present, I have US users' calls tunneling back to the UK, out onto the internet to the US ITSP. The latency and jitter here is double what it would otherwise be. Although the Cisco 7965 phones we use are really very good at handling latency, packet loss and jitter, you basically end up with a 2 second one-way delay, which is not really acceptable. To Michael: I would definitely trade a bit of latency on voicemail and IVR calls into the US office for the benefits and simplicity of HA. For example, by having only one cluster I can have UK users answer inbound US calls and vice-versa, which I presume would be a lot more hassle to set up if I use 2 separate installations. Is it a goal of sipXecs to become HA by default, where a single server instance is just a special non-redundant case of this? I guess there are a few services such a voicemail and IVR which are single instance only right now, but I suppose voicemails could be replicated between redundant servers, and could IVR not be multi-homed? Regarding sipXbridge, once it is multi-instance, if the "system" detected a server running sipXbridge had gone down, could it not have one of the other instances of sipXbridge re-register against those ITSPs that were running on the crashed server. (The superuser could select the default sipXbridge server for ITSPs based on his view of the optimal path, but at least if that server went down, calls could still come in and out through that ITSP). If the system was told a little about the topology of the network, it could presumably work out to allow voicemails to be recorded on a server near the sipXbridge for incoming calls, but let the end user connect to the voicemail server closest to their phone to pick them up. I'm new to sipXecs so maybe these ideas are rubbish or they've already been thought of and rejected as no good. On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:10 PM, M. Ranganathan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Damian Krzeminski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > J Coatline wrote: > >> > >> Am I right in thinking that a sipxecs 3.11/4.0 HA configuration can only > >> have 1 instance of sipxbridge? Trying to create the SBC role on more > >> than one server seems not to be allowed, and I have read posts that seem > >> to confirm this. > > > > Yes. At the moment. But read on... > > > >> > >> Our business has 2 offices, one in the UK and one on the US west coast. > >> The two offices are connected by a VPN. The US office uses a US-based > >> ITSP, and the UK office uses a Europe-based ITSP. > >> > >> If both offices use the UK-based sipxbridge, calls made to and from our > >> US office have their RTP media routed over the VPN back to the UK > >> sipxbridge, then out onto the internet in Europe, back across the > >> Atlantic to our US ITSP. This is giving really high latency, and much > >> worse call quality, and seems quite inelegant, given that if we could > >> also have an SBC running on our sipxecs server in the US office, the > >> calls could go out directly onto the internet in the US, and essentially > >> stay within the US. > >> > >> Similarly, if we place the sipxbridge in the US, we get the same problem > >> in the UK. > >> > >> However, this page: > >> > >> > http://sipx-wiki.calivia.com/index.php/SIP_Trunking_with_sipXecs:_Overview_and_Configuration > >> > >> states that: > >> > >> "The sipXbridge service can be installed on the same physical server as > >> all the other sipXecs components, or it can be deployed on separate > >> hardware. The choice is based on the need for scalability. In such a > >> distributed setup several sipXbridge components can be added to sipXecs, > >> each on its own physical server." > >> > >> Have I misunderstood something about sipx's SBCs/sipxbridge? I'm new to > >> sipxecs so any help would be really appreciated. > >> > >> > > > > There is a bug in sipXconfig (XCF-3296) that effectively prevent it from > > configuring sipXbridge on a remote server. Once it's fixed (by the end of > > the month) you can experiment with configuring it on a remote server. > > Ask again then: I'll tell you how to remove one sipXbridge per cluster > > limitation in sipXconfig. > > > > Independent of that: are you sure you want a single HA sipXecs and not 2 > > (or more) connected sipXecs installations. Why? > > D. > > > To add to what Damian is stating above, you will always have the > restriction of a given itsp account only being configured from a > single sipxbridge (process) instance. ITSPs that I have experimented > with do not support DNS SRV for their registered or provisioned > clients although some expect their clients to support DNS SRV lookups > (which SipxBridge does do). > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > sipx-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users > > Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users > > > > > > -- > M. Ranganathan > _______________________________________________ > sipx-users mailing list > [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users > Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users >
_______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users
