Hello,
I like the idea to provide failover support - if the patch is well designed
I am ready to incorporate it into gk.
A few my comments on this:
*) a simple failover can be done only under the following circumstances:
- ARQ is received and a destination is not registered with the gk,
- Setup is received, but remote endpoint does not accept tcp signalling connection,
- Setup is received and forwarded to the remote side and remote side
replies with ReleaseComplete, but:
- H.245 channel has not been yet opened (and specified to the calling endpoint)
either by means of fast start/h.245 tunneling or a separate h.245 tcp connection
*) a failover could be configured using some concept of failover groups like:
[Gatekeeper::Failover]
Group1=alias11,alias12,alias13,...
Group2=alias21,alias22,alias23,...
...
GroupN=aliasN1,aliasN2,aliasN3,...
so if the failover should be applied, endpoint failover group membership is checked
and failover destinations are processed (in the order specified, maybe).
Maybe we could then write:
[Gatekeeper::Failover]
AnsweringMachine=*,voicemail_alias
Any comments?
---
Zygmuntowicz Michal
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
List: Openh323gk-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Archive: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=8549
Homepage: http://www.gnugk.org/
