New model? Which model. Maybe I missed something. :)
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Adrian Georgescu <a...@ag-projects.com> wrote: > Yes, it blows away the DNS SRV concept. The new model where media > relays automatically connect to one or more dispatchers using TLS is > much more secure and has more self-organizing properties then > statically configured DNS that can hold a limited amount of records. > Still you have full control to promote a chosen relay on top of the > list if you want to. You just need to work out a bit your > configuration for achieving this. > > Adrian > > On Apr 2, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Brett Nemeroff wrote: > >> Adrian, >> I do this in a few configurations. However, it kinda blows away the >> whole DNS SRV features, doesn't it? Anyway to indicate a mediaproxy >> preference without nailing to a specific one? >> >> -Brett >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Adrian Georgescu <a...@ag- >> projects.com> wrote: >>> You have control over which MP is selected by setting an AVP in the >>> proxy routing logic. So you can make some checks about your topology >>> and then fetch the relay address from a database. >>> >>> Adrian >>> >>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 1:46 AM, Henk Hesselink wrote: >>> >>>> We're moving our mediaproxies to 2.0 and have run into the >>>> following: in >>>> the old setup we used the priority value in the mediaproxy SRV >>>> records >>>> to prefer local (same datacenter) relays but to failover to a >>>> different >>>> datacenter if all local relays were unavailable. We then used the >>>> SRV >>>> weight value to load balance between different capacity relays >>>> within >>>> the datacenter. >>>> >>>> With 2.0 using conntrack we don't need to load balance anymore, but >>>> we'd >>>> still like to be able to prefer a local relay. Right now a call can >>>> be >>>> completely in one datacenter and yet have the relay in a different >>>> one, >>>> causing unnecessary latency. >>>> >>>> Ideally when a dispatcher sees that an endpoint of a call is on the >>>> same subnet as any of its relays, then it should prefer those >>>> relays. >>>> Is something like that possible? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Henk Hesselink >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Users mailing list >>>> Users@lists.opensips.org >>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Users mailing list >>> Users@lists.opensips.org >>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list >> Users@lists.opensips.org >> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > Users@lists.opensips.org > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users