Open Stack

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 06/30/2013 01:03 PM, Paul Belanger wrote:
>> Personally, I would stay with Asterisk 1.8, but that is just my
>> opinion. WebRTC support in Asterisk is still maturing and I wouldn't
>> count on using it for production for a little longer.
>
> It's definitely bleeding edge.  I think the standards are still in flux,
> as well.
>
> Since the primary use case here is conferencing, perhaps a more
> compelling reason to use something newer than Asterisk 1.8 is the newer,
> and much better conferencing application, ConfBridge, starting in
> Asterisk 10.  It doesn't require special kernel support like the older
> conferencing app, MeetMe.  It's more efficient, more configurable, and
> has some basic video support.
>
I agree, I think the specific conference functionality need is going
to drive which version of Asterisk we use.  Unfortantly, Asterisk 10
is already in security fixes only, and EOL shortly [2]. So we should
consider 1.8 or 11.

>> As for the Asterisk package, don't expect to see anything greater then
>> 1.8 from Debian / Ubuntu until some newly embedded libraries are
>> removed.  I am not sure about REL, I'm sure Russell knows.  Other
>> option are compiling from source or rolling our own packages, but not
>> sure we'd want to take on that responsibility.
>
> You can get up to date packages for CentOS 6 from Digium.
>
> http://packages.asterisk.org/centos/centos-asterisk-11.repo
>
> I think that's what I would go with.  When Paul and I worked there, the
> same thing was available for Ubuntu, but it has since died off.
>
I personally prefer Debian / Ubuntu, but ultimately falls to the
-infra team (assuming they are managing) which OS to use. As for which
packaging repo to use, I'd vote a distro over packages.asterisk.org,
they tend to get more packaging love :)

>> Here's the puppet modules I use for my asterisk deployments[1]. They
>> worked great for my needs, however some work on my side would be
>> needed to split them out.  I've been meaning to get around to doing
>> it, but sadly other things come up.
>>
>> Managing Asterisk with Puppet works pretty well actually, I don't
>> think I have had any issue between both of them.  The real decision
>> point comes down to how you plan to configure asterisk, eg realtime vs
>> static files.  I prefer static files, which makes puppet happier.
>
> How tied to Ubuntu and Asterisk 1.8 are your modules?
>
They are the only things supported right now.  Additionally, the
manifests require specific functionally merged into Asterisk.  I
believe Asterisk 11 has everything needed, but would have to double
check.  My manifests rely heavy on specific configuration file
functionality in Asterisk (EG: #include, #tryinclude statement). Like
I said, the setup works great but we'd need to do some work on them to
confirm Asterisk 11 would work.

If we do decided to use the manifests, I don't have an issue stepping
up and doing the leg work on them.  I need to do it eventually, and
helping OpenStack would be a good cause.

[2] https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Asterisk+Versions

--
Paul Belanger | PolyBeacon, Inc.
Jabber: paul.belanger at polybeacon.com | IRC: pabelanger (Freenode)
Github: https://github.com/pabelanger | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pabelanger