1. Messages
  2. Soliciting feedback on a UX change for route services

Re: Soliciting feedback on a UX change for route services

Mike Youngstrom <youngm@...>
 

Thanks Shannon,

Though James' suggestion would work if the the service bound to a route
doesn't use a proxy then the order become irrelevant. It would be
inconvenient to have to list all of the services bound to a route every
time I wanted to add or remove a route service.

I would propose something along the lines of the way buildpack position is
managed.

#Bind Route Service
cf bind-route-service DOMAIN SERVICE [-n HOST] [-i POSITION]

#List route services and their current order
cf route-services DOMAIN [-n HOST]

Then the user can specify a position if it is important to them but use the
default if they don't care.

Mike

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Shannon Coen <scoen(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

This is great. Thank you, Mike.

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
CLI work.

cf update-route DOMAIN [-n HOST] [-s 'list,of,service,instances']

Shannon Coen
Product Manager, Cloud Foundry
Pivotal, Inc.

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 do
you have in mind for associating a service instance with a route, but not
providing a forwarding address?

I would imagine you could bind a service to a route any time you want to
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
needed.

Basically a service applied to a route could trigger and manage all kinds
of functionality not necessarily implemented as proxy orchestrated by the
GoRouter.

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
your MVP.

Mike

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev

?
attachment.html

Join cf-dev@lists.cloudfoundry.org to automatically receive all group messages.