|
Community |
Community -> PublicMeetings -> 27th of May 2015WhenTopicsDistributed User Location During this meeting we will discuss about implementing a distributed location service. As a starting point, we present two development directions. Some of them are more generic/abstract than others. Some are tailored for large platforms, and some for smaller deployments (faster to implement, also less nodes required).
Note: when talking about this topic, although high-availability for 100% of components is possible through the use of virtual IPs, only UDP-based platforms eliminate the need for SIP user agents to re-REGISTER in case of an edge platform node failure. However, for stream-based connections (such as TCP and TLS) other mechanisms exist, such as TCP timeout or keep-alive messages. Possible directionsThree-layer solution (SBC layer -> Registrar layer -> Shared cache)Purpose of layers
This is the more generic solution, since it solves the problem in each use case (TCP/UDP endpoints, public or NAT'ed). The shared cache may be an SQL/NoSQL database or, together with the Registrar layer, it may even be part of an OpenSIPS cluster, where all nodes would share the same location information, in order to provide high availability. Note that in case of UDP-only platforms, this solution can be tuned to offer 100% high-availability by doubling the number of SBC together with virtual IPs. This way, any component of the SIP platform may catch fire, and none of the clients will even have to re-REGISTER!
Two-layer solution (Registrar layer -> Shared cache)Purpose of layers
By storing location information (AOR-registrar mappings) within a shared cache (SQL/NoSQL DB), users are able to dial any of the platform's registrar servers and still initiate calls.
Conclusions
Future Questions
Future questions are discussed on the mailing list. IRC Logs18:00 < razvanc>| hi all 18:00 --- | bogdan_vs has changed the topic to: OpenSIPS monthly meeting 18:00 < razvanc>| and welcome to the new Public meeting discussion :D 18:00 < lirakis>| :) 18:00 <@ bogdan_vs>| !!!!! meeting in progress !!!!!! 18:00 < jarrod>| yipee 18:00 < liviuc>| hello all 18:01 < lirakis>| so - going off the public meeting notes: http://www.opensips.org/Community/IRCmeeting20150527 18:01 < lirakis>| there are 2 proposed schemes for distributed userlocation 18:01 < lirakis>| i would like to propose a 3rd 18:01 <@ bogdan_vs>| well, they are some starting points 18:01 < lirakis>| sure 18:01 <@ bogdan_vs>| we do not want to limit to 18:01 < lirakis>| basically following the guidelines of RFC5626 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5626 18:02 < brettnem>| Hey all! 18:02 < lirakis>| using and edge proxy that forwards registration requests to a registrar/core processing server 18:02 <@ bogdan_vs>| as is time consuming to present solution -> we did the compile some things in advance 18:02 <@ bogdan_vs>| Hi Brett 18:02 < lirakis>| diagrams: http://imgur.com/a/5hnmU 18:03 < lirakis>| This system actually coveres the pros of both the 2 proposed solutions in the notes, while avoiding the cons of the SBC solution 18:03 <@ bogdan_vs>| lirakis: this is option 1 (from our side) 18:04 < lirakis>| but - its not an SBC, it is an edge proxy (opensips) 18:04 < lirakis>| and there are multiple edge proxies 18:04 <@ bogdan_vs>| if you do not have any network constrains (thanks to an sbc or edge proxy), is jut a a matter of sharing 18:04 <@ bogdan_vs>| sharing data 18:05 <@ bogdan_vs>| right ? 18:05 < lirakis>| i would say yes 18:05 < lirakis>| however 18:05 < lirakis>| the difference between an SBC and an edge proxy is VERY big 18:06 < lirakis>| an SBC has no geographic scaling capability while edge proxies can simply be added to expand 18:07 <@ bogdan_vs>| sure, but I do not to get into that....my point is that, from registrar perspective they are more or less the same 18:07 < lirakis>| more or less 18:07 < lirakis>| yes 18:07 <@ bogdan_vs>| :) 18:08 <@ bogdan_vs>| the challenge I see when comes to distributing the USRLOC comes from a kind of conflict 18:08 < lirakis>| conflict between ? 18:08 <@ bogdan_vs>| you talk about "distributed" registrations, but you have to deal with "local" constrains 18:08 <@ bogdan_vs>| like the networks ones 18:08 < lirakis>| NAT etc.? 18:09 < jarrod>| the ones he addresses with path headers?? 18:09 <@ bogdan_vs>| I can share the registration (contact), but it using that info will be limited by network (TCP, NAT, etc) 18:09 < lirakis>| not if you use path headers 18:09 < lirakis>| edge proxy appends a path header and any registrar MUST save with path support 18:09 <@ bogdan_vs>| jarrod: yes, indeed, but the question : do you require to have a SBC/edge all the time between registrar and client ? 18:10 < lirakis>| yes 18:10 < jarrod>| absolutely 18:10 < lirakis>| either that or you make the registrar the edge - but that is simply an architectural decision 18:10 <@ bogdan_vs>| what if you have a cluster arch where the registrar + main proxy faces directly the client ? 18:10 < lirakis>| the edge can also be the registrar and spiral registration requests 18:10 < lirakis>| bogdan_vs, ^ 18:10 < lirakis>| this is what we do currently 18:11 < lirakis>| our "core" proxy servers are also our regisrar 18:11 < lirakis>| we recieve a REGISTER request, if the src_ip!=myself append_path() forward(myself); 18:11 <@ bogdan_vs>| yes, but I guess you have the edge proxies, decoupling the registrar info from the net layer 18:11 < lirakis>| I think that is smart to decouple them yes 18:12 <@ bogdan_vs>| and who is doing the pinging ? the registrar ? 18:12 < lirakis>| that way edge proxies become the ... edge... handling connections (TCP/WS) and simply forwarding requests 18:12 < lirakis>| bogdan_vs, yes the registrar sends a ping THROUGH the edge 18:12 <@ bogdan_vs>| (if you have an SBC, you could have it doing) 18:12 < lirakis>| see the second and third images in http://imgur.com/a/5hnmU 18:13 < lirakis>| opensips acting as the registrar with NAT helper will simply function as it would if it were the client directly REGISTERing 18:13 <@ bogdan_vs>| yes, that was more a fake question for the next step :) 18:13 <@ bogdan_vs>| and the registrar servers, how do they share the contacts ? 18:13 < lirakis>| how do you know who is a local user to ping? 18:13 < lirakis>| bogdan_vs, right - so how do they share contacts .... we currently use a distributed KV store 18:13 < lirakis>| (cassandra) 18:13 <@ bogdan_vs>| I suppose you have several registrar servers ... 18:14 < lirakis>| we do 18:14 < lirakis>| we have ... 8 i think 18:14 <@ bogdan_vs>| and each one pings the contacts they personally received ? 18:14 < lirakis>| yes 18:14 <@ bogdan_vs>| as all do have access to all contacts (via nosql) 18:14 < lirakis>| each functions as an independant server, but also is "federated" with all the other servers 18:14 < lirakis>| bogdan_vs, yes 18:14 <@ bogdan_vs>| and if a registrar goes down....is another one taking over the pinging ? 18:15 < lirakis>| not currently 18:15 <@ bogdan_vs>| but ideally, it should :) 18:15 < lirakis>| yes ideally 18:16 < lirakis>| well - techncally sepeaking our registrar is also our "core processing" server 18:16 <@ bogdan_vs>| so what you have is a "kind" of usrloc using a DB ONLY mode with a distributed DB backend 18:16 <@ bogdan_vs>| (nosql backend, of course) 18:17 < lirakis>| short answer - yes, long answer - ... not exactly 18:17 < lirakis>| but .. for the sake of this discussion - yes 18:17 < jarrod>| im also accomplishing this simply with postgresql + bdr 18:17 < jarrod>| (not nosql) 18:17 < jarrod>| and using the standard usrloc module 18:18 < jarrod>| i think the point is to enable opensips to rely on backends that support this type of geodistributed write anywhere 18:18 < lirakis>| there is a minor issue currently where nathelper will try to ping ALL contacts - not just ones that it has a local socket for 18:18 < lirakis>| from a "what does opensips need to support" to make this work perspective .... 18:19 < jarrod>| like ive said, thats simple with custom nathelper flag per registrar 18:19 < lirakis>| right 18:19 < razvanc>| lirakis: its not that simple to figure out who has to ping the client 18:19 < razvanc>| :) 18:19 < jarrod>| but could easily have a better solution 18:19 <@ bogdan_vs>| jarrod: yes, the ugly raw query 18:19 < jarrod>| bogdan_vs: that works with sql backends... 18:19 < jarrod>| BUT 18:19 < jarrod>| for usrloc specifically, there is ONLY ONE QUERY that uses that raw query 18:19 < razvanc>| I mean if a registrar is down, who should inherit those customers? 18:20 <@ bogdan_vs>| so , with such a solutions there are issues: 18:20 < jarrod>| for db_cachedb/cachedb_cassandra i was just assuming what it was wanting and handling the query myself 18:20 < lirakis>| razvanc, it could be anyone so long as they send the ping's to the appropriate edge proxy 18:20 <@ bogdan_vs>| 1) assigning the pinging on a contact 18:20 < lirakis>| razvanc, the REAL problem is if the edge proxy goes down 18:20 <@ bogdan_vs>| 2) the shared DB backend 18:20 < jarrod>| lirakis: i actually prefer the client initiating the pings where applicable 18:20 < lirakis>| jarrod, thats fine, and I also turn on client pings, but you cant rely on clients to do things right 18:20 <@ bogdan_vs>| lirakis: well, you need to have it redundant ? 18:21 < lirakis>| bogdan_vs, so that gets into rfc5626 18:21 < jarrod>| lirakis: basically if they use our provisioning server i dont set the natflag 18:21 < lirakis>| there can be multiple edge's that a client has connections to, or has registered with but then it also needs to support instance id etc 18:21 < jarrod>| because i make sure to enable it in the provisioned configurations 18:22 < razvanc>| lirakis: indeed, if the edge proxy goes down, that's a different story 18:22 < razvanc>| but let's focus on the registrar side 18:22 < lirakis>| right - and i think that ... while it is important to have HA etc. is a different discussion 18:22 <@ bogdan_vs>| now, without an intention of breaking the discussion idea..... 18:22 < lirakis>| as i said - that gets into sip outbound 18:22 <@ bogdan_vs>| what about the second options ? 18:22 <@ bogdan_vs>| (as presented on the web page) 18:23 <@ bogdan_vs>| is anyone see it as something they may use/consider in a real deployment ? 18:23 < lirakis>| i think the second options is basically the same as my "3rd option" it simply does not consider seperating the connection managment 18:23 < jarrod>| isnt the CON stated overcome with simple HA per registrar? 18:23 <@ bogdan_vs>| just to know hoe much time to allocate to each option :) 18:23 < lirakis>| yeah i actually have never looked into HA stuff with opensips 18:23 < lirakis>| it might be that you could simply HA the registrar's 18:24 < lirakis>| but i have never looked into that 18:24 < lirakis>| I think getting proper shared DB backed stuff working is the core issue at this point 18:24 < jarrod>| right, thats a different topic, but that seems easy to overcome with each local instance 18:24 < lirakis>| it doesnt exist 18:24 < jarrod>| agreed 18:24 < jarrod>| ^ 18:24 < lirakis>| we have a custom module written that makes cassandra work 18:24 <@ bogdan_vs>| so options 2 is actually condensing the edge proxy and registrar on the same instance ? 18:25 < lirakis>| bogdan_vs, yes 18:25 < jarrod>| i thikn for usrloc specifically, it should be able to accomodate any backend (i.e. raw_query) 18:25 <@ bogdan_vs>| so, to address all the possibilities, opensips should have functions for edge and others for distributed usrloc 18:26 < razvanc>| jarrod: ideally the entire distributed functionality should be wrapped in simple opensips functions 18:26 < jarrod>| ooh that sounds better 18:26 <@ bogdan_vs>| and the you can combine them as you want getting a pure Edge proxy, a pure distributed registrar or a mixed edge + registrar ?? 18:26 < razvanc>| that's what we are trying to figure out, what these functions should do behind :) 18:26 < jarrod>| but its simple to write the simple translation functions per backend 18:26 < lirakis>| bogdan_vs, yes the conceptual components are as you just described 18:26 < lirakis>| how they are actually deployed is not really relevant 18:26 < lirakis>| but those are the "elements" of the system 18:27 <@ bogdan_vs>| ok, we are getting somewhere :) 18:27 < lirakis>| the edge manages connections, keeps NAT open via pings, and forwards requests to a registrar or core processing proxy 18:27 < lirakis>| all of these may or may not be on the same machine 18:28 < lirakis>| and may indeed be the same opensips instance 18:28 <@ bogdan_vs>| but I see some needs to improve USRLOC for : better noSQL support, better pinging integration 18:28 < lirakis>| but they will have logically different segments of processing in the script (which is what we do) 18:28 < razvanc>| the idea is that having all of them on a single machine, you have more information and thus you can do more stuff 18:28 < lirakis>| bogdan_vs, i think that would be a very good start 18:29 <@ bogdan_vs>| as you want to be able to use a noSQL backend (not an SQL one) and to decide which contacts to ping 18:29 < lirakis>| yes - that would be ideal 18:29 <@ bogdan_vs>| and on the other side, to better handle registrations themselves - like sip.instance and reg-id 18:29 < jarrod>| but are you still thinking of funneling "nosql backends" through db_cachedb/cachedb_ modules? 18:30 <@ bogdan_vs>| to avoid all contact forking with mobile devices 18:30 <@ bogdan_vs>| jarrod: not necessarily 18:30 < lirakis>| bogdan_vs, that is only a consideration when you start getting into clients that are even capable of doing stuff like SIP outbound 18:30 < lirakis>| I know of no such client that currently exists 18:30 <@ bogdan_vs>| we can look at a native noSQL support in USRLOC 18:30 < jarrod>| hmm 18:31 <@ bogdan_vs>| lirakis: like no client implements the 5626 ?? 18:31 < jarrod>| but so you are thinking of implementing "native noSQL" ONLY in usrloc? 18:31 <@ bogdan_vs>| jarrod : if it brings PROS 18:31 < jarrod>| or making another generic module that can extend the functionality to other modules 18:31 < lirakis>| bogdan_vs, i do not know of any 18:32 <@ bogdan_vs>| well, with the noSQL things are not so simple as with SQL - as there is no standard 18:32 < jarrod>| right 18:32 <@ bogdan_vs>| some are simple KV, others with counters, others with lists, other with documents (json) 18:32 < lirakis>| so i was thinking about adding some kind of "capability" for the DB api that would map usrloc type stuff 18:32 < jarrod>| which is why i liked the db_cachedb integration where i can impement it PER backend 18:32 < lirakis>| like instead of doing a raw query for get_all_u_contacts 18:32 <@ bogdan_vs>| and USRLOC is not simple when comes to data structures 18:33 < lirakis>| the db module must have a capability for that call 18:33 < jarrod>| raw query n my mind is the only thing that needs to change 18:33 < jarrod>| (for quick implementation) 18:33 < razvanc>| lirakis: you'd like a method to overwrite the raw queries the usrloc module does when querying the db? 18:34 < lirakis>| basically change the usrloc raw queries to some API / interface 18:34 < lirakis>| that the db module must implement 18:34 <@ bogdan_vs>| jarrod: even before getting to that raw query, your DB must support kind of lists 18:34 <@ bogdan_vs>| as usrloc is about AOR with a list of contacts 18:34 <@ bogdan_vs>| that needs to be consistently shared 18:35 < lirakis>| right but with k/v stores ... how those "lists" are stored could be very different based on the backend 18:35 < lirakis>| cassandra vs. redis. etc 18:35 <@ bogdan_vs>| right 18:35 < lirakis>| we simply store a row key with the AOR as the key, and all the columns are the contacts stored as u_contact structs 18:35 < jarrod>| yea, for the db_cachedb translation queries, i implement the logic PER module (i.e. usrloc has different logic than version) 18:36 < lirakis>| making that an API/interface makes it so the DB module can choose how to implement the call to the backend 18:36 <@ bogdan_vs>| lirakis: so the value encodes the entire list of contacts? 18:36 < lirakis>| bogdan_vs, if we call get_all_u_contacts() it returns a linked list (i think) of u_contact structs 18:37 < jarrod>| what i do is perform the query and then built the db_res_t 18:37 < lirakis>| but in the cassandra db - yes 18:37 < lirakis>| ill show an example ... one sec :) 18:37 < razvanc>| lirakis: you're usin the lists support in cassandra? 18:37 < razvanc>| because otherwise I don't see how you can do this atomically 18:37 < lirakis>| razvanc, its basic cassandra 18:38 < razvanc>| and is there any mechanism you're using to ensure atomicity? 18:38 < razvanc>| I mean if a client registers simultaneously on two registrars 18:38 < razvanc>| and both of them add a record 18:38 < razvanc>| in the same time 18:38 < lirakis>| so this is why i said ... long answer - no 18:38 < lirakis>| heh 18:38 < razvanc>| oh :) 18:38 <@ bogdan_vs>| :D 18:39 < lirakis>| so a client can register simultaneously on two registrars 18:39 < lirakis>| and we rely on cassandras consistency mechanisms to sync the shared backend 18:39 < lirakis>| you can specify how many servers are required for a "quorum" 18:39 < lirakis>| we allow things to be "eventually" consistent 18:40 <@ bogdan_vs>| lirakis: ok, at timestamp 0, the key is empty (no registration) 18:40 < lirakis>| and accept that within .5 seconds ... both phones may not ring 18:40 < lirakis>| but within 1 second .. they will 18:40 < razvanc>| yes, but if two servers insert two data in the same time, who merges them? 18:40 <@ bogdan_vs>| and then you have 2 registrations in the same time, on different servers 18:40 <@ bogdan_vs>| both servers will no value for the key and insert 2 different values (each server its own contact) 18:41 < lirakis>| so there will be 2 registrations for the same key (aor) 18:41 < jarrod>| right 18:41 < jarrod>| with different contact (Source ip/port) and callid ? 18:41 < lirakis>| yes 18:41 < lirakis>| https://gist.githubusercontent.com/etamme/2a6aad375c616ce336a2/raw/8fd70a99a6fd528673c6548a0394ecdeac6541d6/gistfile1.txt 18:41 < razvanc>| yup 18:41 < jarrod>| which is what eric uses as a key 18:41 < razvanc>| but same aor 18:41 < lirakis>| see that gist 18:41 < jarrod>| lirakis' solution solves that 18:42 < lirakis>| location['AOR']=['callid-contact1','callid-contact2',...,'callid-contactN'] 18:42 < razvanc>| so with cassandra if you insert two records with the same AOR, they are merged into the same record? 18:43 < lirakis>| a row (key) has many columns (values) 18:43 < lirakis>| a key is an aor, a value is a SPECIFIC registration 18:43 < razvanc>| oh right, I see now 18:43 < lirakis>| if you try to write 2 registrations for the same AOR for the same CALL-ID-CONTACT 18:43 < lirakis>| it will only end up with 1 18:43 < lirakis>| cassandra uses timestamps 18:43 < lirakis>| to know which is "newer" 18:44 < jarrod>| and dont foget to mention the auto ttl 18:44 < jarrod>| which addresses the expires query parameter of the raw query 18:44 < lirakis>| yes - cassandra has automatic TTL so the registrations automatically expire 18:44 <@ bogdan_vs>| ok, but you see....this is the tricky part 18:44 < lirakis>| but yea - i dont want to make this about "lets use cassandra" 18:45 <@ bogdan_vs>| you made the USRLOC yo work with cassandra 18:45 < lirakis>| ...cassandra is just one possible tool 18:45 <@ bogdan_vs>| not with nosql 18:45 <@ bogdan_vs>| :) 18:45 < lirakis>| i know that 18:45 < lirakis>| we literally wrote a db_cassandra_usrloc module 18:45 <@ bogdan_vs>| so getting a generic nosql support may be a hard one 18:45 < lirakis>| it can only be used with usrloc 18:45 < jarrod>| yea, i wouldnt target generic nosql support 18:45 <@ bogdan_vs>| actually a db_cassandra_usrloc_dbonly module :) 18:45 < jarrod>| trying to make this work with every backend 18:45 < lirakis>| and .. i dont know .. if thats an answer 18:46 < lirakis>| bogdan_vs, well it actually has a mysql connection inside it too .... ;) 18:46 < jarrod>| just making it possible to integrate it with backends that support this type of geo distributed model 18:46 <@ bogdan_vs>| dude, you rock !! :) 18:46 < razvanc>| lirakis: lol :D 18:46 < lirakis>| i mean .. is that a possible answer .... custom db_userloc module per backend 18:46 < lirakis>| ? 18:47 < razvanc>| lirakis: it's not the nice answer I think 18:47 <@ bogdan_vs>| well.....if it solved the problem and there is no other better solution.... 18:47 < lirakis>| id agree its nota nice answer 18:47 < lirakis>| im just not certain how "generic" a solution we can come up with 18:47 < lirakis>| i just wanted to throw out there what we did 18:48 < lirakis>| we did it that way to minimize having to change anything else within opensips 18:48 <@ bogdan_vs>| aha 18:48 <@ bogdan_vs>| ok, that's the DB side.... 18:48 <@ bogdan_vs>| what about federating...:) 18:49 < jarrod>| it seems more advantageous to rely on the DB to accomplish the guts 18:49 <@ bogdan_vs>| do we need a mechanism to configure all the opensips nodes that need to share ? 18:49 < jarrod>| i guarantee more and more of these type of backends with immerge 18:49 < lirakis>| thats really all accomplished with the PATH headers. I think the nat ping stuff could use some attention 18:49 <@ bogdan_vs>| lirakis: yes, that is noted and we will check 18:50 < lirakis>| bogdan_vs, i think that as far as federating is concerned ... its really up to the implementor to determine who can pass traffic 18:50 < lirakis>| on onsip ... we will accept a call from any place on the internet 18:50 < lirakis>| and we will send calls to any sip address 18:50 < lirakis>| (we challenge the latter) 18:50 < lirakis>| but we operate in "stacks" ... 18:51 < lirakis>| so there is a stack of a edge, a registrar, and a core 18:51 < lirakis>| edge only signals to registar or core 18:51 < lirakis>| and only cores signal between each other 18:51 < razvanc>| I think what bogdan_vs wants to address is whether opensips needs to know all instances inside the platform 18:51 < lirakis>| no 18:51 < razvanc>| and how do they manage to find themselves 18:51 < lirakis>| they dont need to 18:52 < razvanc>| they do need in case of registrars failure 18:52 < razvanc>| when contacts have to be inherited 18:52 < razvanc>| by someone else 18:52 < lirakis>| if edge1 gets a request for bob@biloxi.com, it sends it to its core ... that core does a usrlocation lookup, gets a contact with a PATH ... sets the $du and its done 18:52 < lirakis>| ok - so I think that "HA" registrars is some thing worth discussing 18:53 < lirakis>| or how to "inherit" contacts 18:53 < razvanc>| actually I was thinking about pinging 18:53 < lirakis>| right 18:53 < lirakis>| so was i 18:53 < razvanc>| who should ping the "lost" clients 18:53 < lirakis>| stack1 has edge1, registrar1, core1 18:53 < lirakis>| for some reason registrar1 dies 18:53 < lirakis>| ... who sends pings 18:53 < razvanc>| yup 18:53 < lirakis>| i mean ... the nathelper module can be anywhere 18:53 < lirakis>| really 18:53 < lirakis>| and it just needs to see the "view" of what it "owns" 18:54 < lirakis>| just so long as the pings traverse the appropriate edge 18:54 < lirakis>| so its really ... HA nathelper 18:54 < lirakis>| not HA registrar 18:55 < razvanc>| I was thinking of something else 18:56 < razvanc>| stack has edge1, registrar1, registrar2, core1 18:56 < lirakis>| right 18:56 < razvanc>| let's add registrar3 too :) 18:56 < lirakis>| sure 18:56 < razvanc>| each registrar has its own set of clients 18:56 < lirakis>| but .. it doesnt 18:56 < razvanc>| and each of them ping its own set of clients (there's no mechanism right now for this) 18:56 < lirakis>| ok .. keep going with your scenario 18:57 < razvanc>| in case registrar3 fails 18:57 < razvanc>| registrar1 and 2 should take its clients 18:57 < lirakis>| ok 18:57 < lirakis>| so ... there is no "ownership" of contacts per registrar 18:57 < lirakis>| they simply save them, and look them up 18:57 < razvanc>| yeah, but that means everybody pings everybody 18:57 < lirakis>| no no 18:57 < lirakis>| so .. nathelper 18:58 < lirakis>| or whatever is doing the pings 18:58 < lirakis>| is responsible for lookingup users associated with a given "edge" and pinging them 18:58 < lirakis>| edge "owns" the clients 18:58 < lirakis>| registrars own nothing 18:58 < razvanc>| so the edge is somehow corelated to the registrar 18:58 < lirakis>| there could be any number of registrars behind an edge 18:59 < lirakis>| or there could just be one 18:59 < lirakis>| but in OUR implementations there is currently a 1:1 relationship 18:59 < lirakis>| we scale in "stacks" 18:59 < razvanc>| so each registrar sends to a couple of edges 19:00 < lirakis>| other way around 19:00 < lirakis>| edge:registrar 1:M 19:00 <@ bogdan_vs>| and if the registrar goes down, how is pinging its edges ?? 19:00 < razvanc>| so each client will receive M pingings? 19:00 < lirakis>| razvanc, no - so im saying that the registrars (M) are not really responsible for sending pings ... 19:01 < lirakis>| you could literally have a seperate server 19:01 < lirakis>| nat-helper1 19:01 < lirakis>| that simply loads up nathelper, looks at the database for contatcts with flag "stack1" set 19:01 < lirakis>| and pings them 19:01 <@ bogdan_vs>| ok, still the same problem 19:02 <@ bogdan_vs>| is the pinger configured for "stack1" goes down 19:02 < lirakis>| yes 19:02 <@ bogdan_vs>| which one will ping the "stack1" ? 19:02 < lirakis>| i dont know - but like i said ... this is a HA nathelper problem 19:02 < lirakis>| not an HA registrar problem 19:02 <@ bogdan_vs>| ok, so you do not cover the HA part 19:02 < lirakis>| right 19:02 < lirakis>| i have no idea how to do HA in opensips 19:02 < lirakis>| lol 19:03 < lirakis>| is there a heartbeat mechanism 19:03 <@ bogdan_vs>| :) .....we were thinking to get a solution to cover both distribution and HA 19:03 < lirakis>| if so ... then each pinger box 19:03 < lirakis>| would need to know about others 19:03 <@ bogdan_vs>| or at least to come with all the ingredients to do it 19:03 < lirakis>| so that it could take over 19:04 < lirakis>| bogdan_vs, right - i was just saying they are not directly connected problems 19:04 <@ bogdan_vs>| yes, that what I meant by "a federation" support 19:04 < lirakis>| right i got you know 19:04 < lirakis>| *now 19:04 <@ bogdan_vs>| so be able to configure all the nodes part of the federation, so they can both share and backup 19:04 <@ bogdan_vs>| we are looking also in other scenarios where such support will be needed 19:04 <@ bogdan_vs>| not usrlocs related 19:05 < lirakis>| sure - so ... when you startup nathelper .... is there a db table some where that has all the other pingers with state? 19:05 <@ bogdan_vs>| brettnem knows ;) 19:05 <@ bogdan_vs>| lirakis: kind of 19:05 < lirakis>| so you want some generic mechanism for service discovery 19:05 < lirakis>| they all have naptr records with SRV's for pinger.stack1.domain.com 19:05 < lirakis>| lol :P 19:05 <@ bogdan_vs>| going further....yes 19:06 < lirakis>| so this is sort of getting into the binary replication land IMO .... 19:06 < lirakis>| i can tell you how cassandra does it ... 19:06 <@ bogdan_vs>| well, this is already exceeding the topic of today....but something like that will be useful at some point 19:06 < lirakis>| each node has a schema, and one or more seed nodes. When they come online they try to contact a seed node to get updated info about the "ring" 19:07 <@ bogdan_vs>| lirakis: not going so far...as binary repl....just to share state and assume roles in the cluster 19:07 <@ bogdan_vs>| yes....kind of 19:07 < lirakis>| so .. a cluster module could be very interesting 19:07 < lirakis>| that would enable support for some thing like that 19:07 < lirakis>| it could expose an api that other modules could use to share / update information about a cluster 19:08 < lirakis>| that would just be backed by a db backend though 19:08 <@ bogdan_vs>| right 19:08 < lirakis>| i dont think we want to rewrite a distributed keystore as an opensips module 19:08 < lirakis>| heh 19:09 <@ bogdan_vs>| ok, trying so wrapup the usrloc discussion 19:09 < lirakis>| but ... it could just have some functions that are keystore like .... get_nodes() ... get_value(key) ...etc 19:09 <@ bogdan_vs>| 1) functionality focus on (a) edge and (b) shared registrar 19:10 <@ bogdan_vs>| and you can combine or use them separately 19:10 <@ bogdan_vs>| 2) see options in enabling generic nosql support in usrloc 19:10 <@ bogdan_vs>| 3) solving the natpinging issue (distributed and HA) 19:11 < lirakis>| If those 3 can be covered ... i think we'll have a solid distributed userlocation solution in opensips 19:11 < lirakis>| :D 19:11 <@ bogdan_vs>| hopefully :) 19:12 <@ bogdan_vs>| ok, I guess we can continue the discussion for each topic on the mailing list 19:12 <@ bogdan_vs>| (after digesting a bit the discussion) 19:12 <@ bogdan_vs>| :) 19:12 < lirakis>| OK - sounds good (and in here too) 19:12 <@ bogdan_vs>| and the clustering topic sounds promising ;) 19:12 < lirakis>| it does sound interesting :) 19:13 < lirakis>| thanks again guys for taking the time to have these monthly meetings 19:13 <@ bogdan_vs>| ok, anything else to add for the usrloc topic ? 19:13 < lirakis>| very much appreciated 19:13 <@ bogdan_vs>| if not, we can call it done for today ! 19:14 <@ bogdan_vs>| thank you all for being here 19:14 < lirakis>| thanks! 19:14 <@ bogdan_vs>| and especially for contributing 19:14 <@ bogdan_vs>| ;) 19:14 <@ bogdan_vs>| Razvan will do the update on the web page, as a short summary 19:15 <@ bogdan_vs>| ok, thank you everybody ! 19:15 < lirakis>| excellent - thanks again 19:15 <@ bogdan_vs>| !!!!!! Meeting ended !!!!!! 19:16 < razvanc>| thank you guys! |