[OpenSIPS-Users] high-availability - senario

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Hi Julien,

OpenSIPS does not support the 0.0.0.0 address - it is not able (due 
internal stuff) to learn new IPs on the fly (at runtime)

Regards,
Bogdan

Julien Chavanton wrote:
> This was well documented
>  
> in opensips.cfg
>  
>     listen=udp:0.0.0.0:5060
>  
> or for both TCP/UDP
>  
>     listen=0.0.0.0:5060
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* users-bounces at lists.opensips.org on behalf of Julien Chavanton
> *Sent:* Tue 02/02/2010 12:47 PM
> *To:* OpenSIPS users mailling list; OpenSIPS users mailling list
> *Subject:* Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] high-availability - senario
>
> I deceided not to use a loadbalancer because, the IP address for 
> outbound call would have been different and we want it to be 
> completely transparent for existing Interco.
>  
> I went with heartbeat + mon
> I created sip.monitor
>  
> When the fail over take effect it is not listening on the virtual IP, 
> how do I configure opensips to bind to 0.0.0.0:5060 ?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* users-bounces at lists.opensips.org on behalf of Nigel Daniels
> *Sent:* Tue 26/01/2010 11:45 PM
> *To:* OpenSIPS users mailling list
> *Subject:* Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] high-availability - senario
>
>
> have you considerd using keepalived with vrrp instead ?
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Julien Chavanton <jc at atlastelecom.com 
> <mailto:jc at atlastelecom.com>> wrote:
>
>     I am configuring high-availability with heart-beat + LVS + ldirector
>      
>     I do not want to load balance but mostly make sure it will fail
>     over quickly, I have found situation where the in LVS (UDP/TCP)
>     connection never timeout when the remote IP send periodic OPTIONS
>     request for example.
>      
>     I beleive I will have to set very low UDP/TCP time-out, however 
>     with such a low time-out I can not load-balance so I will use
>     weighted Round-Robin with very high priority 65535 on the active
>     one and weith 1 on the passive server.
>      
>     Any other suggested way to cluster without load-balancing ?
>      
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Users mailing list
>     Users at lists.opensips.org <mailto:Users at lists.opensips.org>
>     http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Nigel Daniels
> Network & Systems Administrator
> ConnectAndSell inc.
> (650)-533-2542
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.opensips.org
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>   


-- 
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
www.voice-system.ro