LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: [lvs-users] LVS + Asterisk

To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] LVS + Asterisk
From: Gerry Reno <greno@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 10:48:29 -0400
Morgan Fainberg wrote:
> In theory, you could use a FWM (firewall mark) setup and persistent  
> connections.  If you map the virtual server group to use the same FWM  
> for the TCP ( SIP uses TCP port 5060) and UDP (RTP usually is  
> configured for UDP ports 16384-32767)  datastreams.  It should work in  
> theory.
>
> However, the application-based Load-balancing in Asterisk does  
> function fairly well and you might end up with a better solution.   
> Typically, with load-balancing I find that the more complexity you add  
> just makes it that much harder to debug when things go awry.
>
>   
I think the fwmark approach might work. And I like this since 
load-balancing with LVS is better for me because I have all my other 
services on it.
I'm keeping all traffic going through the Asterisk box with 
canreinvite=no. canreinvite=yes would present a further scenario as the 
endpoints would then end up in direct communication for RTP.
You'll have to excuse me if I've oversimplified this. I have not used 
fwmarks before.

So let's see, I'm using keepalived so in the conf I guess I would have 
something like:
virtual service RS_IP 5060 { # SIP
persistent...
virtual service fwmark 1 { # SIP RTP
persistent...

In iptables (directors):
iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p udp -d 192.168.1.27-28 --dport 
10000:20000 -j MARK --set-mark 1 # SIP RTP: where -d has ip of real servers

In iptables (realservers): # only for NAT, what about DR?
iptables -A PREROUTING -t mangle -d <VIRTUAL_IP> -j MARK --set-mark 1 # 
route back to director

Does this look reasonable?

Regards,
Gerry



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