Hi Duane,

First, in regards to your DNS records - I suppose you use higher priority and not higher weight ? The weight are used to control how many (as ratio) times each record is used. If you want to have all the time R1 and have R2 only if R1 is done, then you should use priorities.

Now, you mentioned both proxies do use the same location table in DB. But what db_mode is used in the usrloc module ? If you have DB_ONLY mode, I see no problem with the scenario you described (as both proxies will read/write from/to single DB). If you use other db modes, you will probably need to use the bin replication in usrloc module in order to sync the cache too.

Regards,

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
http://www.opensips-solutions.com

On 25.01.2015 02:31, Duane Larson wrote:
Before I try to reinvent the wheel I wanted to see if there is already a way to do this.

For redundancy I have two Proxies and I am using DNS SRV with Proxy01 weighted higher so that it is the primary that all clients register and use. Both proxies use the same location database. In the event of a failure on Proxy01 all clients would register with Proxy02. Everything is fine but what happens when clients register time expires and they start re-registering with Proxy01 since it is weighted higher. So now some clients will be registered with Proxy01 and some with Proxy02. Everything will work fine but what if Client01 (who is registered with Proxy01) calls Client02 (who is registered with Proxy02)? I think the INVITE should do the following

Client01 -> Proxy01 -> Proxy02 -> Client02

On Proxy01 I could look in the location database to see what is set in the "socket" field and then route it to Proxy02 but I was wondering if there is already a way to do this?


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users

Reply via email to