Re: Feedback requested: Sticky sessions: If request includes VCAP_ID cookie, always include it in the response

David McClure

Jonathan is correct. 

This issue applies whether or not the reverse proxy is a route service. In fact, while the reproduction steps in the original post used a route service, later in the issue, the original poster indicates that the use case they care about solving for currently is using nginx as the reverse proxy (not as a route service).

And yes, I believe it also applies if the proxy and the backend are deployed on two different CF's (though that is not what we care about now, so if a solution cut that out of scope, I think it'd be fine).

In any case, I think the issue title feels OK still given the above, but thanks for asking the question and giving us a chance to clarify!

From: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Jonathan Matthews via <>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 2:37 AM
To: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...>
Subject: Re: [cf-dev] Feedback requested: Sticky sessions: If request includes VCAP_ID cookie, always include it in the response

I’ve no extra information on this than this thread, but it strikes me that it’s definitely possible to deploy apps to CF which would reverse proxy other apps on CF, *without* attaching them as route services. 

I think it might be a interesting and potentially sub-optimal choice to do so, given route services are essentially reverse-proxy-as-a-service(!), but I can definitely see folks doing that. Perhaps with workflows baked in from before route services were a thing. 

Overall I’d suggest the framing of this should reference the hosting of both the proxy and the origin service: AIUI both have to be on CF for this thread’s problem and solution to be in scope. They can be *different* CF installations, however, if I’ve got it correct in my head ...

“Reverse proxy applications which are called by a gorouter, and which themselves call a gourouter”? Hmmm. Perhaps a bit too wordy ...


On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 08:47, Marco Voelz <marco.voelz@...> wrote:

Dear David,


Thanks for the detailed explanations and the heads-up! While looking at the initial issue in github, I noticed that there's a mismatch in vocabulary between the OP and your team responding: My understanding is this change impacts route service, as they are known to the Cloud Controller, it does not impact any generic setup where people deploy a reverse proxy application and forward from there the requests to individual CF applications. Is this an accurate summary?


In this case, I'd like to see this reflected in the language for the issue/backlog item: only scope this to cf route services, not "cf deployed reverse proxy applications".


In case this influences also reverse proxy applications deployed with other means than route services, I'd need to ping some internal teams to assess the impact of this from their point of view.

Jonathan Matthews
London, UK

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.