asterisk users - Mar 2006 - Re: DUNDi .... Halfway and CLUSTERING

I understand what you're saying now.  While I have absolutely no proof of
this, I have to believe that it's something they've solved.  I've
got
several production systems (since early December of last year) using the
type of cluster that I'm talking about, and I've yet to hear of any
issues
that could be related to this.  I also did extensive testing both in the lab
and at the first production site with a lot of debugging information and
never saw this sort of thing.
 
Sorry I don't have any magic for you, but for me it just worked.  That was
actually the easiest part of the whole solution.
 
Regards,
- Brad

   _____  

From: asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com on behalf of David Thomas
Sent: Fri 3/17/2006 3:53 PM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: DUNDi .... Halfway and CLUSTERING



On 3/17/06, Watkins, Bradley <Bradley.Watkins@compuware.com> wrote:
> Do you mean the peristence of connecting a specific phone to a specific 
> server?  If so, then it's relatively easy.  The ldirectord has a
persistence 
> setting that does that.  If I'm misunderstanding you, then could you
explain 
> further what you mean? 
> 
Have a look at this doc from the developers of LVS... 

http://www.austintek.com/LVS/LVS-HOWTO/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO.services_that_dont_wo
rk_yet.html
<http://www.austintek.com/LVS/LVS-HOWTO/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO.services_that_dont_w
ork_yet.html>  

This has been discussed a few times in the SER list. The issue is 
specific to UDP which includes the majority of SIP endpoints. 
Currently LVS does not always send reply packets from the addresses 
that they were received on. This breaks SIP dialog. 

If you have found a way around this, that would be great. Please let me
know. 

David 
_______________________________________________ 
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- 

Asterisk-Users mailing list 
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: 
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
<http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users>  




The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It
contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named
addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose
it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately
and then destroy it. 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 5807 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20060317/fac4c283/attachment.bin

On 3/17/06, Watkins, Bradley <Bradley.Watkins@compuware.com>
wrote:
> I understand what you're saying now.  While I have absolutely no proof
of
> this, I have to believe that it's something they've solved. 
I've got
> several production systems (since early December of last year) using the
> type of cluster that I'm talking about, and I've yet to hear of any
issues
> that could be related to this.  I also did extensive testing both in the
lab
> and at the first production site with a lot of debugging information and
> never saw this sort of thing.
>
> Sorry I don't have any magic for you, but for me it just worked.  That
was
> actually the easiest part of the whole solution.
That is encouraging! What type of environment are you working with?
Are your SIP clients behind NAT? Is this an "Asterisk only" setup?

I guess I will have to do more testing to see what has changed.

David