Server-to-server support

Openfire Openfire Support
21

Hey Josh.

What you are talking about is exactly what S2S does. Every Jabber-ID that you send a message to and that’‘s not local to your server leads to a S2S connection from your server to that server. Something along the lines of mail transports: You send a mail to your ISP, they send the mail to the recipients ISP and that finally delivers the information. Same works backwards: If someone on Loc4 writes to JoshC@loc1.yourcompany.tld his jabber server initiates a S2S connection. Those connections don’‘t need to be persistent, in fact I think they time out if they aren’'t used and are recreated when needed…

Is that what you want?

Ben

22

Let me clarify a bit more of my initial train of

of thought on this one. The idea was that in each

location, we would have an independent server. So say

we have three locations with server names of Loc1,

Loc2, and Loc3, each in it’'s own seperate domain.

When a user at one of the domains logs into their

client of choice, they log into their respected

server, each with it’'s own individual Host name…

e.g. Someone at location 1 would sign in to server

Loc1. That server, Loc1, will have it’'s own specific

users, but utilizing S2S, they should be able to

communicate with any of the users on Loc2 or Loc3. If

my understanding is correct, S2S will accomidate this

need.

That is perfect. And s2s is just fine.

Then you throw another server into the mix, Loc4,

oc4, but this time it’'s within the same Domain as

Loc1. I do not wish to cluster the servers to

accomidate load or anything along those lines, but

rather establish a S2S session with the other three

servers. Perhaps my idea of S2S is skewed and I

should be thinking more along the lines of

Clustering?

Server-to-server is correct here too but since you will have more than one server in the same machine you will have to make sure that there won’'t be a port conflict or you should use different interfaces for each server and remember that each server (even in the same machine) should have a different hostname.

Regads,

– Gato

23

Ben,

That is exactly what I am looking for.

Gato,

I’'m not sure what you mean by

"but since you will have more than one server in the same machine you will have to make sure that there won’'t be a port conflict "

I am not looking to run two instances of Jabber on the same server, I would like to have two independent servers within the same domain.

If it makes it any easier to understand why I would like this ability, the two servers that are on the same domain are actually physically in two seperate locations, with a VPN tunnel connecting the two.

Thanks,

Josh

24

I am not looking to run two instances of Jabber on

the same server, I would like to have two independent

servers within the same domain.

Not sure what kind of domain you are talking about here… Windows domain? DNS domain? Anyway - it doesn’'t matter for JM or any other XMPP server. The only requirement is a unique resolveable name. If that means loc1.domain1.tld and loc2.domain1.tld or jive.domain1.tld and jive.domain2.tld is just a matter of personal preferences and depends on how good you are friend with your local DNS guy.

Ben

25

Ben,

By Domain, yes, I mean a Windows Domain. We have several Windows Domains linked via Checkpoint VPN’'s. The servers will have unique host names within the same domain, e.g. Server1@domain1 and Server2@domain1 while the other servers will be in their own Windows based domains, e.g. Server3@domain2 and Server4@domain3.

I just so happen to be the “local DNS guy”, it’'s one of my many responsibilities here, so I may call the servers whatever I please

Thanks,

Josh