> > It's very similar to HTTP Options, with a message composed of an
> > header and a body, in clear text. The response is also a clear text
> > (and unique) message, with header and body (if needed).
> > It work fine if the couple <IP><port> is different (2 options with
> > different port will be correctly balanced between my server) :
> I'm lost. "is different" from what? What makes it work/not
When IP:port1 and IP:port2, the identifier is different for LVS, and I
will see 2 connections in ipvsadm
> > 17:00:08.997286 IP 192.168.1.209.5064 > 192.168.1.231.sip: SIP, length: 436
> > 17:00:08.997294 IP 192.168.1.209.5064 > 192.168.2.3.sip: SIP, length: 436
> > 17:00:08.998105 IP 192.168.2.3.sip > 192.168.1.209.5064: SIP, length: 322
> > 17:00:08.998113 IP 192.168.1.231.sip > 192.168.1.209.5064: SIP, length: 322
> > 17:00:09.009066 IP 192.168.1.209.5065 > 192.168.1.231.sip: SIP, length: 436
> > 17:00:09.009073 IP 192.168.1.209.5065 > 192.168.2.2.sip: SIP, length: 436
> > 17:00:09.010425 IP 192.168.2.2.sip > 192.168.1.209.5065: SIP, length: 322
> > 17:00:09.010434 IP 192.168.1.231.sip > 192.168.1.209.5065: SIP, length: 322
> > but, if I use a load tester (SIPp), which will generated hundred of
> > differents messages, the director will consider all messages from one
> > source like one connection.
> is this good/bad? Why?
For me, it is good if I have a lot of client, like this configuration :
...........|--------------director ---------realserver 1 to n
In this case, it will work fine for me, because I use SIP proxy or
something very similar.
But, one case is used when we create a IMS/SIP network :
client1 --- clientn
IMS box which will receive call, but forward them in one udp socket
(or one tcp socket)
director (only one connection in basic setup so)
In this case, I will not loadbalance correctly.
So, It's my turn to work ;)
PS : when I was searching, I found some references to a SIP adaptation
for LVS. I know it's not complete, but can someone link me to the last
Thanks for your help,
ENSSAT - LSI 3