LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: Looking for ktcpvs but not quite

To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Looking for ktcpvs but not quite
From: Erik Versaevel <erik@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:04:25 +0100

No, high persistence won't work because reply packets from another SIP source might be balanced to the wrong server, ie packets from 192.168.0.2 might be balanced to real server 1, which sends it's reply directly to 192.168.0.3 (the end point for the call) but the replies from 192.168.0.3 might end up at another real server.
(be aware i'm using direct routing because of NAT traversal)

Erik.


Malcolm Turnbull wrote:

I might be interested in sponsoring someone to develop this, as I've had several customers ask for it (must be a lot of venture capital flooding into VOIP :-).
Although technicaly I have no idea how it would be done...

As a work around , wouldn't a high persistence on UDP by source ip work OK ? (allbeit with badly balanced load.)




Erik Versaevel wrote:

Hello,

I'm currently trying to create a loadbalacing SIP (voip protocol) cluster, however for this to work I need SIP messages from the same call (identifiable by the sip callid field) to get to the same realserver over and over again. (so, I need persistence based on the contents of the SIP Call-ID field). This would call for ktcpvs as we need to process packets at layer 7, however that poses 2 new problems, the first is that SIP uses clear text UDP messages, not tcp and the second is that there are no SIP modules for ktcpvs.

Another option would be to mark SIP packets with iptables/netfilter based on the callid, however i run into the same problem, there are no modules to accomplish this.

I know that there are commercial products available who are able to do SIP session persistence based on callid, the F5 Big-IP for example, the downside of that is it costs around $ 10.000 for a single loadbalancer (which is a SPOF so you need 2) and is a bit overkill as i don't need multi gigabit loadbalancing.

Any thoughts on this?

Kind regards,

E. Versaevel

_______________________________________________
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users






<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>