Re: Should route services really need a route-app mapping?


Krannich, Bernd <bernd.krannich@...>
 

Hi Shannon,

 

Thank you very much for getting back to us on the topic. Quite a few teams here at SAP will be happy to hear about the topic and I’ll make sure to pass your update on to them.

 

Thanks again,

Bernd

 

From: <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Shannon Coen <scoen@...>
Reply-To: "cf-dev@..." <cf-dev@...>
Date: Thursday, 8. February 2018 at 00:19
To: "cf-dev@..." <cf-dev@...>
Subject: Re: [cf-dev] Should route services really need a route-app mapping?

 

[Edited Message Follows]

Currently routes are only known to Gorouter when they are mapped to an app AND the app has running instances. If the app is stopped or crashing, Gorouter will return a 404 for the route. This is because routing configuration is passed through the Diego BBS. 

We've received requests for this several times in the past; see 
http://cf-dev.70369.x6.nabble.com/cf-dev-Brokered-route-services-only-receiving-traffic-for-routes-mapped-to-started-apps-td4699.html#a4742.

You may be happy to learn that we plan to support this use case in coming months. However, we will offer it through our integration with Istio Pilot and Envoy; we don't plan on offering it using Gorouter. One of the key differences between the current routing subsystem and our integration with Istio is that Istio will receive routes directly from Cloud Controller, while only backend IPs and ports will be obtained from Diego BBS. This will enable us to have the router (Envoy) be configured with a route that is associated with a route service but not an app. More on our initiative here: 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VldkvgWPUh13o5RCNjSvzoPFhbY9BtLqBDdk2k0z9fw/edit.

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