Acme SBC geographic redundancy
Is anyone doing geographic redundancy with their Acme Packet SBCs? We've got an HA pair of nn4250s right now and are installing a new Metaswitch system that is geographically redundant at two locations with external call agents, TDM links, etc. We'd like to get SIP to be the same. I'm still waiting on a response from our Acme SE about it but wanted to see what others had done, if anything. I figure some discussion will spark questions I can bring up with Acme as well. Thanks, ---- Brandon Buckner Switching Technician / VoIP Admin Iowa Network Services brandonb at netins.com<mailto:brandonb at netins.com>
Yes I have deployed it in two sites works fine. RT ________________________________ From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Brandon Buckner Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:57 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: [VoiceOps] Acme SBC geographic redundancy Is anyone doing geographic redundancy with their Acme Packet SBCs? We've got an HA pair of nn4250s right now and are installing a new Metaswitch system that is geographically redundant at two locations with external call agents, TDM links, etc. We'd like to get SIP to be the same. I'm still waiting on a response from our Acme SE about it but wanted to see what others had done, if anything. I figure some discussion will spark questions I can bring up with Acme as well. Thanks, ---- Brandon Buckner Switching Technician / VoIP Admin Iowa Network Services brandonb at netins.com
As with any HA setup of IP nodes, the main problems boil down to: 1. Adequate network bandwidth and network availability between the primary and standby unit (or silo) for reliable and sufficiently low-latency synchronisation of various information (config changes, standby status, any call state information shared among them in Acme's HA setup, etc.); 2. The more common way to make them effectively redundant from a user perspective is to have them share an IP address, in which case it is necessary to ensure that the traffic destined for that IP network can pass into the other POP in the event of a failure, which requires complicated integration with your BGP and/or IP connectivity arrangements and any interior routing protocols you may be running. A more realistic approach is to have all the clients use an SRV record - if all your clients are capable of SRV lookups - and specify the secondary with lower priority, avoiding the complexities of IP sharing across disparate geographic sites altogether. -- Alex Brandon Buckner wrote:
Is anyone doing geographic redundancy with their Acme Packet SBCs? We?ve got an HA pair of nn4250s right now and are installing a new Metaswitch system that is geographically redundant at two locations with external call agents, TDM links, etc. We?d like to get SIP to be the same. I?m still waiting on a response from our Acme SE about it but wanted to see what others had done, if anything. I figure some discussion will spark questions I can bring up with Acme as well.
-- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
I agree with Alex, SRV records could be a more realistic solution for the access side given that you are willing to accept some post dial delay in failover mode. If you plan on using ACME for peering, since most providers don't support SRV records, you will have to provide them with multiple IPs and the order in which you would like them to be used. Brad Anouar Director - Systems Engineering P: 310-360-2028 F: 310-360-2029 brad at broadcore.com -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Alex Balashov Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 4:03 PM To: Brandon Buckner Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Acme SBC geographic redundancy As with any HA setup of IP nodes, the main problems boil down to: 1. Adequate network bandwidth and network availability between the primary and standby unit (or silo) for reliable and sufficiently low-latency synchronisation of various information (config changes, standby status, any call state information shared among them in Acme's HA setup, etc.); 2. The more common way to make them effectively redundant from a user perspective is to have them share an IP address, in which case it is necessary to ensure that the traffic destined for that IP network can pass into the other POP in the event of a failure, which requires complicated integration with your BGP and/or IP connectivity arrangements and any interior routing protocols you may be running. A more realistic approach is to have all the clients use an SRV record - if all your clients are capable of SRV lookups - and specify the secondary with lower priority, avoiding the complexities of IP sharing across disparate geographic sites altogether. -- Alex Brandon Buckner wrote:
Is anyone doing geographic redundancy with their Acme Packet SBCs? We've got an HA pair of nn4250s right now and are installing a new Metaswitch system that is geographically redundant at two locations with external call agents, TDM links, etc. We'd like to get SIP to be the same. I'm still waiting on a response from our Acme SE about it but wanted to see what others had done, if anything. I figure some discussion will spark questions I can bring up with Acme as well.
-- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
participants (4)
-
abalashov＠evaristesys.com -
Brad＠broadcore.com -
BrandonB＠netins.com -
ronaldtr＠nortel.com