VoIP Mailing List Archives
Mailing list archives for the VoIP community |
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ex.vitorino at gmail.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject: [asterisk-users] dundi network - redundancy / fault toleranc |
 |
|
Hi list,
I'm planning a private DUNDi network for a cross-country
distributed PBX. Initially it will be composed of about 10
systems, growing to about 20.
Current requirements point to a topology of two interconnected
"DUNDi hubs", each peering with half the PBXs... This would
lead to two interconnected / inter-peered stars.
Example:
- Consider PBXs A to H
- C and E will be hubs and peer with each other
- A, B and D peer with C
- F, G and H peer with E
This leads to a maximum three hop lookup and will make
good use of current network topology / bandwidths. Of course,
should any of the hubs be unavailable and the lookup capability
is severely compromised.
Now, how to move on to acheive some kind of fault tolerance ?
According to the docs we've studied, DUNDi does not like loops
(which we assume one can limit with low enough TTLs).
Our doubts are:
- Should one use the "order" peer parameter to specify alternate
lookup paths / peers ? Is that its purpose ? If not, what is it used
for ?
- Alternatively, should one create loops in the DUNDi topology and
limit them via TTL ?
- If both options are possible, which would be the trade-offs between
them ? (Not clear at all to us!)
- Assuming any of the above is possible as a means to acheive
redundancy, which of the following topologies would your prefer ?
(hmmm, maybe I need to refresh my graph theory...) 
#1 - Peer each PBX with both hubs
#2 - Duplicate both hubs and peer each PBX with its hub and
its hub dup
For better understanding, take a look at:
#1 - http://www.2photosharing.com/images/qhpnzycd7j7kf26j2f.png
#2 - http://www.2photosharing.com/images/npzbwvgnr4t079laou0.png
Thanks in advance for review and feedback.
Cheers,
--
exvito |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mwatson at becon.org
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 9:58 pm Post subject: [asterisk-users] dundi network - redundancy / fault toleranc |
|
|
I don;t have any answers for you...
But I would love to hear about the results after you get this working and what road blocks you hit and how you overcame them.
--
Matt
________________________________________
From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com [asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Ex Vito [ex.vitorino at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 10:08 PM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: [asterisk-users] dundi network - redundancy / fault tolerance ?
Hi list,
I'm planning a private DUNDi network for a cross-country
distributed PBX. Initially it will be composed of about 10
systems, growing to about 20.
Current requirements point to a topology of two interconnected
"DUNDi hubs", each peering with half the PBXs... This would
lead to two interconnected / inter-peered stars.
Example:
- Consider PBXs A to H
- C and E will be hubs and peer with each other
- A, B and D peer with C
- F, G and H peer with E
This leads to a maximum three hop lookup and will make
good use of current network topology / bandwidths. Of course,
should any of the hubs be unavailable and the lookup capability
is severely compromised.
Now, how to move on to acheive some kind of fault tolerance ?
According to the docs we've studied, DUNDi does not like loops
(which we assume one can limit with low enough TTLs).
Our doubts are:
- Should one use the "order" peer parameter to specify alternate
lookup paths / peers ? Is that its purpose ? If not, what is it used
for ?
- Alternatively, should one create loops in the DUNDi topology and
limit them via TTL ?
- If both options are possible, which would be the trade-offs between
them ? (Not clear at all to us!)
- Assuming any of the above is possible as a means to acheive
redundancy, which of the following topologies would your prefer ?
(hmmm, maybe I need to refresh my graph theory...)
#1 - Peer each PBX with both hubs
#2 - Duplicate both hubs and peer each PBX with its hub and
its hub dup
For better understanding, take a look at:
#1 - http://www.2photosharing.com/images/qhpnzycd7j7kf26j2f.png
#2 - http://www.2photosharing.com/images/npzbwvgnr4t079laou0.png
Thanks in advance for review and feedback.
Cheers,
--
exvito
_______________________________________________
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
russell at digium.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 9:59 pm Post subject: [asterisk-users] dundi network - redundancy / fault toleranc |
|
|
Ex Vito wrote:
| Quote: | Now, how to move on to acheive some kind of fault tolerance ?
According to the docs we've studied, DUNDi does not like loops
(which we assume one can limit with low enough TTLs).
|
Which documentation are you referring to? You may have misunderstood something,
or there may be some false information floating around the internet (*GASP*).
The DUNDi protocol has built in handling for loops. It keeps track of which
nodes have already been queried, so you don't have to worry about loops in your
network. Every node can peer with every other node if you really wanted to. Of
course, that's not necessarily the most efficient thing to do ...
| Quote: | Our doubts are:
- Should one use the "order" peer parameter to specify alternate
lookup paths / peers ? Is that its purpose ? If not, what is it used
for ?
|
The order parameter is really a tool. There is not an exact situation that it
is intended for. It depends on your network. Keep in mind that DUNDi caches
results along the way. If you use the order option to have servers send queries
through a primary server, you getter better caching performance.
| Quote: | - Alternatively, should one create loops in the DUNDi topology and
limit them via TTL ?
|
As I said before, don't worry about loops. Set your TTL to handle a worst case
path for a query in your DUNDi topology.
| Quote: | - If both options are possible, which would be the trade-offs between
them ? (Not clear at all to us!)
|
I'm not sure what you mean. The best thing to do is to have multiple peers.
Have every server have at least two peers. Setting a primary and secondary can
be good for caching reasons.
I'm not necessarily up on my graph theory, either, but I would probably go with
something like #1.
A combination of having multiple peers and usage of the order option can give
you good redundancy without hurting your performance. When you set primary,
secondary, etc. peers, the server will attempt to contact them one at a time.
If you have multiple peers, but do not set an order, they will all be contacted
at once, which may (probably will) increase latency for call completion, will
increase bandwidth consumption, among other things.
--
Russell Bryant
Senior Software Engineer
Open Source Team Lead
Digium, Inc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ex.vitorino at gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 10:13 am Post subject: [asterisk-users] dundi network - redundancy / fault toleranc |
|
|
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:59 AM, Russell Bryant <russell at digium.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Ex Vito wrote:
| Quote: | Now, how to move on to acheive some kind of fault tolerance ?
According to the docs we've studied, DUNDi does not like loops
(which we assume one can limit with low enough TTLs).
|
Which documentation are you referring to? You may have misunderstood something,
or there may be some false information floating around the internet (*GASP*).
|
Went back and reviewd the docs (essentially: Asterisk TFOT 2nd ed, wiki, the
excellent docs by JR Richardson and dundi.com)...
...in short: nowhere is such statement written. I presume we
"self-inflicted" such
idea from the best practices mentioned in dundi.com and from the
special attention
that should be taken when creating looping topologies regarding TTLs.
| Quote: |
As I said before, don't worry about loops. Set your TTL to handle a worst case
path for a query in your DUNDi topology.
|
Great. That's now clear, thanks.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | - Assuming any of the above is possible as a means to acheive
redundancy, which of the following topologies would your prefer ?
|
|
...
| Quote: |
I'm not necessarily up on my graph theory, either, but I would probably go with
something like #1.
|
After internal discussion and reviewing the final example in the DUNDi
protocol draft, while agreeing that the differences are actually small,
we are also targetting #1...
Again, thanks for your quick feedback, Russel.
Cheers,
--
exvito |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Search
