[Serusers] Failover PSTN Gateways

Atle Samuelsen clona at camaro.no
Thu Sep 2 05:05:26 UTC 2004


Hi Ranga (and Adrian)

I was just qurius on when they would be finished with the software.
Failure routes is a good thing ;-)

-Atle

* Ranga <rrao_v at yahoo.com> [040902 07:02]:
> Adrian/Atle,
> 
> We did this using failure routes. Only problem was,
> wait time ( invite timer ) for both gateways is same
> as we cant have two timers with different timeout
> values in ser.
> 
> See inline comments.
> 
> -Ranga
> 
> --- Atle Samuelsen <clona at camaro.no> wrote:
> 
> > Howdy Adrian!
> > 
> >  Do you know when you whing you'll be finnish with
> > this project? or
> >  atleast ready for use?
> > 
> > 
> >  -atle
> > 
> > * Adrian Georgescu <ag at ag-projects.com> [040902
> > 00:42]:
> > > There is some work in progress: 
> > > 
> > > http://download.dns-hosting.info/SERLCR/README 
> > > 
> > > Adrian 
> > > 
> > > >>>>>>>> 
> > > Hi list, 
> > > 
> > > We have a setup with 2 redundant stateful SER
> > SIP-Servers with 
> > > accounting. 
> > > 
> > > For calls to the PSTN we have 2 ISDN-PRI gateways
> > connected to 
> > > different ISDN-PRI lines. 
> > > 
> > > We need to implement a dynamic failover mechanism
> > and load balancing. 
> > > 
> > > a) Incoming calls: No problem, the PSTN switch
> > takes care of that 
> > > b) Outgoing calls: 
> > >   Both GWs are registered at both SERs; calls are
> > usually relayed with 
> > > "t_relay_to_udp(x.x.x.x, "5060");" 
> > >   But how can I implement a quick failover
> > including load-distribution 
> > > between those gatways? 
> 
> Load distribution may require a seperate module/exec
> script to take routing decisions. When acc is enabled
> you can query database for active calls. We can
> quickly check which gateway is handling how many calls
> and change the host portion of URI before t_relay. 
> 
> > >   I.e. if I receive "busy here" or no response
> > after a short period 
> > > after the "invite", the call should be redirected
> > to the other GW. 
> Busy here can be easily handled in failure route.
> Having short duration for first call and little longer
> timeout for next call is not possible at the moment, I
> guess.
> 
> > > 
> > > Thanks in advance for your help! 
> > > 
> > > Best regards, 
> > > Gerhard 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Serusers mailing list
> > > serusers at lists.iptel.org
> > > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Serusers mailing list
> > serusers at lists.iptel.org
> > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> 




More information about the Serusers mailing list