> -----Original Message----- > From: M. Ranganathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 6:28 PM > To: Martin Steinmann > Cc: Joly, Robert (CAR:9D30); [email protected] > Subject: Re: [sipX-dev] Questions re: NAT traversal configuration > > 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.
I would not be in favor of hardcoding the media relay ports. The way the NAT traversal feature works, this port range ultimately needs to be opened on the firewall and relayed to the private IP address of the media server. I'm sure that most IT people would like to have a say about which port range they will open on their firewall so I think it is important that we keep the configurability there. At the user level, the media relay is a functionality that is used by both the sipXbridge and NAT traversal features to fulfill their duties. As a result, I think it makes most sense if the management piece of the media relay function is decoupled from either features and has its own page or section. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
