toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
What are your current thoughts on "maintaining routes with no backends in
the routing table" ? I quickly scanned the routing backlog few days ago
without yet finding trace of it.
I wish we could have used the opportunity of the cf summit "project office
hours" routing session  to have interactive exchanges around these use
cases. Unfortunately, my autosleep session  is scheduled at the exact
If the cf foundation organizers were able to swap sessions that would be
great. I'll send a separate email to events(a)cloudfoundry.org, is there are
other community members suffering from the same conflict.
Thanks in advance,
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Stefan Mayr <stefan(a)mayr-stefan.de> wrote:
Am 28.04.2016 um 23:08 schrieb Mike Youngstrom:
Here is another minor use case. My users are often confused that a+1 for that proposal. A 404 also causes issues when crawler remove pages
stopped app returns a 404 instead of a 503. So, we implement that
functionality for the user using an app mapped to wildcard routes that
constantly asks the CC for valid routes. This works for wildcard
domains but not one off domains.
It might be better if the router returned a 503. At least for routes
bound to apps. Not sure if this should extend to routes not bound to
from their index. A 503 has less side effects. I would also prefer a 503
service unavailable when a route is not bound - because there is no service
for this route. IMHO the meaning is much closer to what has happended.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Shannon Coen <scoen(a)pivotal.io
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on these use cases. I can see
a route service field requests for an app, whether the app is up on
could be useful.
However, enabling this would significantly change how routes are
for apps on Cloud Foundry, and how the router handles the route
Routes are not currently enabled in the routing tier unless they are
to an app, and only when the app is determined healthy.
You are proposing the router maintains routes which have no
instead of a failed lookup determining whether a 404 is returned,
should figure out whether a route has any backends or a route service.
I'll chew on your use case and keep my ear out for additional use
maintaining routes with no backends in the routing table.
View this message in context:
Sent from the CF Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.