This is great. Thank you, Mike.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
FWIW, James had the following suggestion update-route could be used to
associate multiple routes, and express their chain order. We're not fixed
on this UX. We'll consider this more carefully when we get closer to the CF
cf update-route DOMAIN [-n HOST] [-s 'list,of,service,instances']
Product Manager, Cloud Foundry
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Mike Youngstrom <youngm(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This is interesting. Could you flesh this out for me? What use cases doI would imagine you could bind a service to a route any time you want to
you have in mind for associating a service instance with a route, but not
providing a forwarding address?
customize incoming traffic in some way. But that customization wouldn't
necessarily have to be implemented as a proxy.
Here are a few examples:
* A Public facing service as an indicator that a given route should be
made public facing. (Would require a broker to orchestrate stuff outside
of CF DNS, applying DoS security profiles to the route, force ssl on the
front end load balancer, etc.)
* A service to apply web front caching to a route. Could be done as a
proxy but could also be done by changing config in a front end load
balancer that supports caching like an F5 LTM.
* Rate limiting. Could be implemented as a proxy, or could be implemented
by applying some config in a front end load balancer
* A security service to limit client IP addresses allowed to connect on a
route. Again could be implemented as a proxy if you trust X-Forwarded-For
or simply change some config on a front end load balancer no new proxy
Basically a service applied to a route could trigger and manage all kinds
of functionality not necessarily implemented as proxy orchestrated by the
It also occurs to me that the only time chain ordering of route services
seems to be an issue is in the case of a proxy url. So, it is unfortunate
that I'd be limited to binding only one route service when I may want to
apply all kinds of functionality to a route not implemented as a proxy
because user defined ordering isn't an issue.
That said I can see how it can be difficult for CF to provide a generic
solution to the kind of functionality applied above and that you may not
want to distract from the basic Route Services MVP to accommodate these
types of use cases. I guess I can only hope that you keep the concept of
applying non proxy functionality to a route in mind as you move through
cf-dev mailing list