[OpenSIPS-Users] [RFC] Distributed User Location

Fri Apr 5 15:39:09 CEST 2013

Well, i am not much familiar with internals of opensips, i.e. its core and
modules and how they interact with each other. But as an abstract idea, i
suggest that both Base Node and Super Node should be opensips modules. No
change in standard registrar or usrloc modules are actually needed.

In the Super Node module, we will have,

1. one db table to store base node addresses for monitoring the Event.
2. one db table to store data received from the Event, lets call it "Event
Table".
3. one process to manage "Event Table", pretty much the same way location
table is managed by usrloc module.
4. some scripting functions for opensips.cfg, to look up in "Event Table"
and do SIP redirect.
5. some MI functions to manually manage base node table and event table.

In the Base Node module, we will have,

1. module parameters to define address of Super Node and event advertise
socket (Super Node will connect to this socket to receive events).
2. a process to monitor usrloc table, such that as soon as a new user
registers, it advertise this to event socket.
3. some scripting functions for opensips.cfg, to send call to Super Node if
lookup function (from registrar module) fails and in reply route to handle
SIP Redirect to send call to destination base node returned by Super Node.
4. some MI functions etc.

Thank you.

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <bogdan at opensips.org>wrote:

> **
> Hello Muhammad,
>
> Your approach is the correct one (from SIP perspective) IMHO. But there
> are questions on the implementation side too - like the "Super Node" is
> just a storage or it should have SIP capabilities? How much of this
> behavior should be hardcoded in the registrar + usrloc module ?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
> OpenSIPS Founder and Developerhttp://www.opensips-solutions.com
>
>
> On 04/05/2013 04:57 AM, Muhammad Shahzad wrote:
>
> Well at 5 am in the morning while thinking on this topic the only thing
> ringing in my mind is a mechanism similar to IP to IP Gateway. Here is the
> main concept.
>
>  1. We have number of SIP servers running, say sip1.mydomain.com,
> sip2.mydomain.com ... sipN.mydomain.com, each serving domain mydomain.comand a SIP client A can select any one of these servers through DNS look-up
> (or whatever way possible) and registers to that server. Lets call these
> servers as Base Nodes.
>
>  2. Upon successful registration of client A to server sip1.mydomain.com,
> this Registrar Node fires an Event, which can be subscribed by a back-end
> SIP server, lets call it Super Node. This event will only contain following
> things,
>
>     a). User part of all Contact URIs of client A with Expiry.
>    b). Registrar Node information e.g. its IP address + Port.
>    c). SIP domain of client A. (in case of multi-domain setup)
>
>  3. Super Node stores this information in some db back-end (memcache,
> redis, mysql etc.). This is sort of back-to-back register process but
> without SIP or authentication, since that has already been handled on Based
> Node anyway. The Super Node only needs to know which user is registered on
> which Base Node e.g. user 1001 is registered on node sip1.mydomain.com,
> user 1203 is registered on sip6.mydomain.com and so on.
>
>  4. When a SIP client B tries to send INVITE or MESSAGE or SUBSCRIBE to
> SIP client A. The SIP request will arrive on Base Node it is currently
> registered with, say sip2.mydomain.com. This node will first do local
> look-up for location of client A. Upon failure it will forward request to
> Super Node, which will do a look-up on Event database and finds that client
> A is registered on node sip1.mydomain.com, so it will send SIP redirect
> response 302 to requester Base Node. Now the request source node knows the
> address of request destination node, where it will send request next and
> they both, while acting as independent SIP servers, establish SIP session
> between caller and callee. This should work regardless if both nodes serve
> same or different SIP domains.
>
>  5. The Super Node will also give us global presence of all users
> currently registered to all Base Nodes, which may be useful for management
> and monitoring etc.
>
>  Pros:
> 1. Completely independent of network topology and SIP.
> 2. Will work seamlessly for multi and federated domains.
> 3. Scale-able in every direction.
> 4. Minimal overhead for session establishment. Once supper node return
> destination base node address in SIP redirect response, session will
> establish directly between source and destination base node. Further
> optimizations are possible, e.g. base node can cache destination base node
> returned by supper node for any particular user and avoid querying super
> node for recurring SIP sessions.
>
>  Cons:
> 1. Well, the key problem i can guess is of course the Event database size
> and speed, as it will have information on every user registered to every
> Base Node. I suggest memory cache db such as Redis would be idle for this
> storage.
> 2. Bandwidth consumed in Event transport. We can apply compression and
> make event queues as optimization.
>
>  Comments and suggestions are highly welcome.
>
>  Thank you.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Vlad Paiu <vladpaiu at opensips.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> We would like to get suggestions and help on the matter of distributing
>> the user location information.
>> Extending the User Location with a built-in distributed support is not
>> straight forward - it is not about simply sharing data - as it is really
>> SIP dependent and network limited
>>
>> While now, by using the OpenSIPS trunk, it is possible to just share the
>> actual usrloc info ( by using the db_cachedb module and storing the
>> information in a MongoDB cluster ), you can encounter real-life scenarios
>> where just sharing the info is not enough, like :
>>     - NAT-ed clients, where only the initial server that received the
>> Register has the pin-hole open, and thus is the only server that can relay
>> traffic back to the respective client
>>     - the user has a SIP client that only accepts traffic from the server
>> IP that it's currently registered against, and thus would reject direct
>> traffic from other IPs ( due to security reasons )
>>
>> We would like to implement a true general solution for this issue, and
>> would appreciate your feedback on this. Also we'd appreciate if you could
>> share the needs that you would have from such a distributed user location
>> feature, and the scenarios that you would use such a feature in real-life
>> setups.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Vlad Paiu
>> OpenSIPS Developer
>> http://www.opensips-solutions.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> Users at lists.opensips.org
>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>
>
>
>  --
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen
> Muhammad Shahzad
> -----------------------------------
> CISCO Rich Media Communication Specialist (CRMCS)
> CISCO Certified Network Associate (CCNA)
> Cell: +49 176 99 83 10 85
> MSN: shari_786pk at hotmail.com
> Email: shaheryarkh at googlemail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing listUsers at lists.opensips.orghttp://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>

-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Muhammad Shahzad
-----------------------------------
CISCO Rich Media Communication Specialist (CRMCS)
CISCO Certified Network Associate (CCNA)
Cell: +49 176 99 83 10 85
MSN: shari_786pk at hotmail.com
Email: shaheryarkh at googlemail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130405/9f144f2e/attachment.htm>