[OpenSIPS-Users] Shared 'location' table?

[Chris Maciejewski]

On 22 April 2010 19:52, Laszlo <laszlo at voipfreak.net> wrote:
> 2010/4/22 Chris Maciejewski <chris at wima.co.uk>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I made a diagram showing what I am trying to achieve:
>>
>> http://wima.co.uk/2x_opensips.pdf
>>
>> Is this possible at all?
>> Can we make two OpenSIPs share the same 'location' table, yet each
>> dealing only with it's "own" contacts?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> On 22 April 2010 18:47, Brett Nemeroff <brett at nemeroff.com> wrote:
>> > Just a quick question here.. can some of this be taken care of with a
>> > t_replicate for the register?
>> >
>> > Just a thought..
>> > -Brett
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Chris Maciejewski <chris at wima.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 22 April 2010 18:11, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <bogdan at voice-system.ro>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> Chris Maciejewski wrote:
>> >>>> On 22 April 2010 18:00, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <bogdan at voice-system.ro>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Hi Chris,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> running 2 opensips with different IPs ? because opensips saves in
>> >>>>> location table its own socket (where the REGISTER was received), and
>> >>>>> if
>> >>>>> the other server will try to use it, it will not recognize this
>> >>>>> socket
>> >>>>> (as it is a different IP).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Before going further, note that multiple opensips  sharing  the same
>> >>>>> location table has some flows (due how SIP works) - like if you are
>> >>>>> using multiple interfaces, of different port ; also NAT traversal
>> >>>>> will
>> >>>>> not work.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> In the end, if you do not have NAT and using a single interface, you
>> >>>>> can
>> >>>>> simply ignore those warnings.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>> Bogdan
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi Bogdan,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks for clarification. I am aware due to NAT traversal etc.
>> >>>> multiple SIP registrar servers sharing the same location table will
>> >>>> not work.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I was just worried this WARNINGs might have some negative impact, but
>> >>>> in that case I will just ignore them.
>> >>>>
>> >>> If opensips finds a non-local socket in a usrloc records, it will fire
>> >>> the warning and use one of its own sockets for dealing with that
>> >>> contact.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>> Bogdan
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Ah, I see now.
>> >>
>> >> When UA1 registered at Proxy1 only, Nathelper OPTIONs are sent from
>> >> both Proxy1 and Proxy2. This is not what I wanted :(
>> >>
>> >> Is there any way to make Proxy2 completely ignore UA1?
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Chris
>> >>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> Users at lists.opensips.org
>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/2008-November/001729.html
>
> It can be a starting point.
>
> -Laszlo
>

Hi Laszlo, thanks for the link, but it seems to me it describes
slightly different scenario (when REGISTER is replicated to another
Opensips instance). I would like each of my opensips servers to have
it's own registered contacts in a common 'location' table. As
presented in my diagram above.

Regards,
Chris