[OpenSIPS-Users] usrloc full-sharing cluster doesn't replicate contacts cflags
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
bogdan at opensips.org
Tue Nov 12 07:51:25 UTC 2024
Thanks Michael for the confirmation - this make me think that somehow
you still have some differences between the cfg files on the 2 OpenSIPS
instances, otherwise this fix would have no effect ;)
Best regards,
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
https://www.opensips-solutions.com
https://www.siphub.com
On 12.11.2024 00:20, Michael Ulitskiy wrote:
>
> It works now. Thanks a lot!
>
> *Michael Ulitskiy*
> Ace Innovative Networks, Inc.
> Main/SMS: 212-868-2366
> Direct/SMS: 212-812-1203
> https://www.aceinnovative.com
> On 11/11/24 04:43, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> Liviu pushed on master a potential fix (see [1]). I still think there
>> is some mismatch between the 2 scripts you have, nevertheless the
>> replication should not be affected - and here is the fix Liviu did.
>> Could you try with it and see if it solves your problem ?
>>
>> [1]
>> https://github.com/OpenSIPS/opensips/commit/ee8b3a26f34ef4540b21691577423f545714fc7d
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>>
>> OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
>> https://www.opensips-solutions.com
>> https://www.siphub.com
>> On 06.11.2024 17:58, Michael Ulitskiy wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Bogdan,
>>>
>>> Attached is capture of traffic on port 5555. While it was running I
>>> restarted backup opensips running at 66.114.80.227 and waited for
>>> registration cycle of endpoint 'xyz011101'. Usrloc dump still shows
>>> that cflags are not replicated.
>>>
>>> Active server at 66.114.80.226:
>>>
>>> {
>>> "AOR": "xyz011101",
>>> "Contacts": [
>>> {
>>> "Contact": "sip:xyz011101 at 192.168.0.190:1026",
>>> "ContactID": "3246532381380715253",
>>> "Expires": 50,
>>> "Q": "",
>>> "Callid": "bcab86e5a838513dd934c35ee9392a76",
>>> "Cseq": 8,
>>> "User-agent": "PolycomVVX-VVX_150-UA/5.9.2.3446",
>>> "Received": "sip:66.114.80.8:1026",
>>> "State": "CS_NEW",
>>> "Flags": 0,
>>> "Cflags": "NAT_BFLAG",
>>> "Socket": "udp:66.114.80.228:5060",
>>> "Methods": 8063,
>>> "Attr":
>>> "company_id=2;station_family_id=2;station_id=394;nat=yes;"
>>> }
>>> ]
>>> }
>>>
>>> Backup server at 66.114.80.227:
>>>
>>> {
>>> "AOR": "xyz011101",
>>> "Contacts": [
>>> {
>>> "Contact": "sip:xyz011101 at 192.168.0.190:1026",
>>> "ContactID": "3246532381380715253",
>>> "Expires": 48,
>>> "Q": "",
>>> "Callid": "bcab86e5a838513dd934c35ee9392a76",
>>> "Cseq": 8,
>>> "User-agent": "PolycomVVX-VVX_150-UA/5.9.2.3446",
>>> "Received": "sip:66.114.80.8:1026",
>>> "State": "CS_NEW",
>>> "Flags": 0,
>>> "Cflags": "",
>>> "Socket": "udp:66.114.80.228:5060",
>>> "Methods": 8063,
>>> "Attr":
>>> "company_id=2;station_family_id=2;station_id=394;nat=yes;"
>>> }
>>> ]
>>> }
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> *Michael Ulitskiy*
>>> Ace Innovative Networks, Inc.
>>> Main/SMS: 212-868-2366
>>> Direct/SMS: 212-812-1203
>>> https://www.aceinnovative.com
>>> On 11/6/24 06:20, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>
>>>> Strange I would say. Could you get me a pcap capturing the BIN
>>>> traffic (normally the 5555 tcp port) to see what exactly is
>>>> replicated? Of course, please send it off-list :).
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>>>>
>>>> OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
>>>> https://www.opensips-solutions.com
>>>> https://www.siphub.com
>>>> On 06.11.2024 01:38, Michael Ulitskiy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello Bogdan,
>>>>>
>>>>> Config is very similar. Mostly things specific to local machine
>>>>> are different (ip address, hostname, etc). "NAT_BFLAG" is the only
>>>>> branch flag used. Registrar does 'save("domain")'.
>>>>>
>>>>> I worked around it by adding "nat=yes" to registrar's "attr_avp",
>>>>> which seems to be replicated just fine, but sure, it's better to
>>>>> have cflags replicated as they should.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/5/24 10:26, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have identical cfg's on both servers? The replication of
>>>>>> the contact-flags is definitely in place. But if you have
>>>>>> different cfg's with different flags used, their mapping (string
>>>>>> to idx) may differ on the 2 servers, so the set of idx's
>>>>>> replicated by the first machine may have 0 meaning for the second
>>>>>> one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
>>>>>> https://www.opensips-solutions.com
>>>>>> https://www.siphub.com
>>>>>> On 01.11.2024 00:16, Michael Ulitskiy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To my surprise I've noticed that opensips location cluster
>>>>>>> (full-sharing,active/backup) doesn't replicate contacts cflags.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Active server:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> "AOR": "xyz011101",
>>>>>>> "Contacts": [
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> "Contact": "sip:xyz011101 at 192.168.0.190:1026",
>>>>>>> "ContactID": "3246532381380717115",
>>>>>>> "Expires": 53,
>>>>>>> "Q": "",
>>>>>>> "Callid": "5be2b61175573914d242ab6f79392a76",
>>>>>>> "Cseq": 88,
>>>>>>> "User-agent": "PolycomVVX-VVX_150-UA/5.9.2.3446",
>>>>>>> "Received": "sip:x.x.80.8:1026",
>>>>>>> "State": "CS_NEW",
>>>>>>> "Flags": 0,
>>>>>>> "Cflags": "NAT_BFLAG",
>>>>>>> "Socket": "udp:x.x.80.228:5060",
>>>>>>> "Methods": 8063,
>>>>>>> "Attr":
>>>>>>> "company_id=2;station_family_id=2;station_id=394;"
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> ]
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Backup server:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> "AOR": "xyz011101",
>>>>>>> "Contacts": [
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> "Contact": "sip:xyz011101 at 192.168.0.190:1026",
>>>>>>> "ContactID": "3246532381380717115",
>>>>>>> "Expires": 46,
>>>>>>> "Q": "",
>>>>>>> "Callid": "5be2b61175573914d242ab6f79392a76",
>>>>>>> "Cseq": 88,
>>>>>>> "User-agent": "PolycomVVX-VVX_150-UA/5.9.2.3446",
>>>>>>> "Received": "sip:x.x.80.8:1026",
>>>>>>> "State": "CS_NEW",
>>>>>>> "Flags": 0,
>>>>>>> "Cflags": "",
>>>>>>> "Socket": "udp:x.x.80.228:5060",
>>>>>>> "Methods": 8063,
>>>>>>> "Attr":
>>>>>>> "company_id=2;station_family_id=2;station_id=394;"
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> ]
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks like everything is replicated by cflags. Am I missing
>>>>>>> something? Is it an oversight?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> root at csptest-p1n1:~# /usr/local/opensips3/sbin/opensips -V
>>>>>>> version: opensips 3.4.9 (x86_64/linux)
>>>>>>> flags: STATS: On, DISABLE_NAGLE, USE_MCAST, SHM_MMAP,
>>>>>>> PKG_MALLOC, Q_MALLOC, F_MALLOC, HP_MALLOC, DBG_MALLOC,
>>>>>>> FAST_LOCK-ADAPTIVE_WA
>>>>>>> IT
>>>>>>> ADAPTIVE_WAIT_LOOPS=1024, MAX_RECV_BUFFER_SIZE 262144,
>>>>>>> MAX_LISTEN 16, MAX_URI_SIZE 1024, BUF_SIZE 65535
>>>>>>> poll method support: poll, epoll, sigio_rt, select.
>>>>>>> git revision: cd02af8d9
>>>>>>> main.c compiled on 14:36:42 Oct 31 2024 with gcc 5.5.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Config:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #### Clusterer Module
>>>>>>> loadmodule "clusterer.so"
>>>>>>> modparam("clusterer", "my_node_id", 1)
>>>>>>> modparam("clusterer", "db_mode", 0)
>>>>>>> modparam("clusterer", "sharing_tag", "status/1=active")
>>>>>>> modparam("clusterer", "seed_fallback_interval", 10)
>>>>>>> modparam("clusterer", "my_node_info", "cluster_id=1,
>>>>>>> url=bin:x.x.80.226:5555, flags=seed")
>>>>>>> modparam("clusterer", "neighbor_node_info",
>>>>>>> "cluster_id=1,node_id=2,url=bin:x.x.80.227:5555")
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #### USeR LOCation module
>>>>>>> loadmodule "usrloc.so"
>>>>>>> modparam("usrloc", "nat_bflag", "NAT_BFLAG") #NAT bflag saved
>>>>>>> in usrloc, used to indicate nat
>>>>>>> modparam("usrloc", "desc_time_order", 1) #location
>>>>>>> records are kept timestamp ordered. most recent 1st
>>>>>>> modparam("usrloc", "cseq_delay", 10)
>>>>>>> modparam("usrloc", "hash_size", 14)
>>>>>>> #2^14 - 16356 hash
>>>>>>> entries
>>>>>>> modparam("usrloc", "location_cluster", 1)
>>>>>>> modparam("usrloc", "cluster_mode","full-sharing")
>>>>>>> modparam("usrloc", "working_mode_preset", "full-sharing-cluster")
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any ideas? Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> *Michael Ulitskiy*
>>>>>>> Ace Innovative Networks, Inc.
>>>>>>> https://www.aceinnovative.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Users mailing list
>>>>>>> Users at lists.opensips.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20241112/35fee75c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Users
mailing list