[OpenSIPS-Users] Problem using a shared usrloc table with NAT Ping (OPTIONS) on both opensips instances

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Hi Max,

Instead of merging the registration into the same table for the sake of 
reading it, maybe it would be simpler to have one table per opensips 
instance and use mysql view with a union to merge the two tables - and 
your external scripts will look into that view which will hold records 
from both tables.

Regards,

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
http://www.opensips-solutions.com

On 18.04.2016 13:07, Max Mühlbronner wrote:
> I just found this bug which turned into a feature request (from 2012) 
> someone else had exactly the same problem:
>
> https://sourceforge.net/p/opensips/feature-requests/99/
>
>
> @Bogdan, if for whatever reason the table is being shared by two 
> Opensips instances (In my case it's not for balancing/failover at all 
> but just for having the registrations for two servers in one central 
> place for checking with external scripts/other optimizations...)
>
> Shouldn't each instance check whether it's his client or not before 
> sending the keepalive/OPTIONS pings? This would fix the problems in 
> scenarios like mine and i would guess there are a lot of people with 
> the same problem: but they probably never noticed it, or never will.
>
>
> Best Regards
>
>
> Max M.
>
> On 07.04.2016 13:00, Max Mühlbronner wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I experienced something weird: I got two servers sharing the same 
>> location table. (usrloc module)
>>
>> My problem is: both servers got nathelper ping (OPTIONS) enabled. The 
>> Opensips instance A has it's own clients and instance B also...
>>
>> Now as the location database/table is being shared by both servers 
>> the NAT Pings from Instance B are also sent for clients which are 
>> registered on instance A.
>>
>> I did not find any solution to tell Opensips A/B to only ping "their" 
>> registered clients. The force_socket option of nathelper will not 
>> solve my issue as both servers got their own socket/IP.
>>
>> Is there any workaround for my situation? (Nat ping does not take the 
>> socket/IP of the registered client into account?)
>>
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>
>