On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Martin Steinmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> How would this work in an HA system? Can there be two media relays, one >>> per >>> call server, to support NAT traversal for a redundant system? >>> --martin >>> >> >> In principle, it can work as follows: the sipxbridge service does not >>start on the backup until the failover occurs and the backup takes >>control. We need some discussion on this mechanism ( for my benefit ). >> >>Ranga. >> > > Yes, it would be great to discuss this some more. Since NAT traversal is a > function of the proxy now it would be desirable if media relay services > would run alongside the proxy (master and distributed server). It would be > acceptable to loose the calls that are anchored in a specific instance of > the media relay upon a server failure. However, redialing should immediately > allow to re-establish the calls using a media relay on the redundant > machine. > --martin >
Can somebody shed some light on how sipx handles failover? I should like : 1. A signal upon failover ( when the new replica starts ) OR 2. A start of the sipxbridge process on the replica machine so I can re-register. I think 1 is the preferred way to operate to save on startup time. I need some notification one way or another that a new primary server is running so I can re-register and do whatever else needs to be done. As for the port range discussion, I am in favor of : 1. Hard coding the port range that sipxbridge manages and just making that a read only part of the GUI for nat traversal. 2. Hard coding the port assigned to the XML RPC server that runs as part of sipxbridge. That way the remote client always knows where it can find the service. This way everything that the media relay service needs is known apriori. There is nothing to configure. Also, in case there is a strong argument for actually separating the media relay and signaling functionality into two separate processes ( sipx services ), I can do so ( will cost re-implementation of something that already works) but I should like to understand the motivation first. Apologies if my previous mail on this thread (response to Damian) sounded strident. It was not meant to be so, but perhaps was too strongly worded. I think we are firing up a lot of processes and hence would like to examine the motivation for adding one more. More processes is less efficient and is harder to manage. Thanks 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
