[VoiceOps] Load balancing

Jonathan Thurman jonathan at thurmantech.com
Fri Nov 6 18:55:34 EST 2009

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 4:42 PM, RJ Auburn <rj at voxeo.com> wrote:
> I have seen F5's really mess up SIP signaling on a few deployments. They
> have some basic SIP features but if the NAT stuff gets complex they were not
> always rewriting all the headers. When pressed it seemed like their support
> had only done a few SIP deployments and it was pretty limited.

Good to know.  It's not why we purchased them, but figured I would
give it a shot.  You could probably overcome most of that with custom
irules, but who wants to spend weeks coding that...

Linux-HA won't give you stateful failover, that you seem to have to
pay through the nose for.  If you can deal with the possibility of a
few second outage, and ongoing calls dropping, then it is a viable
option.  We use Linux based cluster services to a large extent because
it is cheap, and the liability is low for us.  It all depends on the
SLA and how much you want to spend.


> On Nov 6, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Jonathan Thurman wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:58 PM, anorexicpoodle <anorexicpoodle at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I have pretty much ruled out OpenSER/OpenSIPS/Kamilio because it isn't
>>> stateful in HA failover. Passing it through an Acme is ridiculously
>>> costly
>>> for the need i have, and most hardware based load balancers I am finding
>>> just aren't sip-aware, so I don't see them doing much better than OpenSER
>>> in
>>> a fail-over scenario, it would just be a different kind of ugliness.
>> F5s are SIP aware, but also expensive.  We just got some LTM 1600s,
>> but I haven't configured them for SIP yet.  Everything else I have
>> used them for they have been rock solid, so I am optimistic.
>> -Jonathan
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoiceOps mailing list
>> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

More information about the VoiceOps mailing list