Date
1 - 8 of 8
TCP Router VS NoRouter
Mike Youngstrom <youngm@...>
Thanks for your interest. We are close to supporting all current routing
experimental features but we recently experienced some personnel issues
which will caused us to lower NoRouter priority for a few months. :( We'll
update the list when we think it is production ready.
Mike
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Mohamed, Owais <Owais.Mohamed(a)covisint.com>
wrote:
experimental features but we recently experienced some personnel issues
which will caused us to lower NoRouter priority for a few months. :( We'll
update the list when we think it is production ready.
Mike
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Mohamed, Owais <Owais.Mohamed(a)covisint.com>
wrote:
Makes perfect sense. I really like the NoRouter because of its simplicity.
I really hope CloudFoundry adopts it and makes it part of its official
release so that NoRouter stays in step with GoRouter updates.
Thanks,
Owaiswrote:
Thinking a little more about your question Mohamed. In his presentation
Mike might have made reference to people making adhoc changes to F5. In
our organization today we have a handfull of engineers that have LTM
access. And some of our existing applications that we're moving to Cloud
Foundry do require some specific LTM config or behaviour since they
required that behaviour previously. One of the benfits of NoRouter is it
simplifies the porting of these applications to Cloud Foundry since they
can make the same or similar changes to the LTM that they needed before.
We definitly view these use cases as a hacks though and are using them to
compile a list of official Service Brokers we need to eventually provide
to
formalize this functionality in NoRouter. Other orgs may not have the
requirement and would prefer that nobody touches the LTM. That type of
org
would work well with NoRouter as well.
Hope that helps.
Mike
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Mike Youngstrom <youngm(a)gmail.com>_______________________________________________Thanks for responding Mohamed.*************************************
Help me understand what you mean when you refer to opening up the LTM to
developers. NoRouter itself must have access to the LTM to update app
pool
members and such but end users/developers themselves will not actually
have
direct access to the LTM.
Some of the features Mike mentioned in his presentation were more a
comment on what is possible if we enable a feature to do so. When/If
NoRouter were to expose some of that functionality it would most likely
by
done using a Service Broker. For example, if an application wishes to
provide a custom OOS page we wouldn't give the developer direct access
to
the LTM to configure an OOS page, instead, I think we'd provide an OOS
Page
Service Broker. When created and bound to an application it would
prompt
NoRouter to configure the virtual server to use that Custom OOS page for
all of the routers mapped to that application. Keeping the details
sufficiently removed from the developer.
Does that help answer your question?
Mike
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Mohamed, Owais <
Owais.Mohamed(a)covisint.com> wrote:Apologize for restarting this thread after a few weeks.
That?s right Mike. Once the LTM opens up to the developers they might
start putting in too much functionality into the Load Balancer like
filters, interceptors. By using NoRouter the LTM will have to be
opened up
to the developer team.
I know that there has to be discipline and access control. But was
just
putting it out as con in the NoRouter Section.
Hoping that Chip does not have concerns with discussing NoRouter here.
Let me know and I can take this discussion offline.
From: Mike Youngstrom <youngm(a)gmail.com>
Date: Monday, May 18, 2015 at 3:22 PM
To: Chip Childers <cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org>
Cc: Owais Mohamed <owais.mohamed(a)covisint.com>, "
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org" <cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org>
Subject: Re: [cf-dev] TCP Router VS NoRouter
Hi Owais,
What are you referring to when you say you're concerned about the LTM
becoming a Monolith? Too much functionality in one component? Too
much of
the system depending on one component?
Chip,
Hopefully it's ok to discuss NoRouter here even though it isn't an
official CF project. Let us know if it is not.
Mike
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Chip Childers <
cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org> wrote:The "norouter", while interesting, isn't the official CF project
approach to HTTP traffic routing. The TCP router is being built to
support
TCP routing as a general solution, with the goal of it becoming an
official
part of the CF release when ready.
-chip
Chip Childers | Technology Chief of Staff | Cloud Foundry Foundation
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Mohamed, Owais <
Owais.Mohamed(a)covisint.com> wrote:Hi,
I attended sessions on both TCP Router (Cloud Foundry and IOT
protocol support by Atul Kshirsagar) and NoRouter (Norouter: Running
Cloud Foundry without the Gorouter by Mike Heath).
I just wanted to start a discussion on the pros and cons of each
approach.
As personal opinion I think NoRouter is a simpler approach and can
definitely be made to support IOT protocols. The main drawback I see
with
the NoRouter is the danger of the LTM becoming a Monolith.
Any suggestions\ideas?
Regards,
Owais
_______________________________________________
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
Owais Mohamed
Makes perfect sense. I really like the NoRouter because of its simplicity.
I really hope CloudFoundry adopts it and makes it part of its official
release so that NoRouter stays in step with GoRouter updates.
Thanks,
Owais
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I really hope CloudFoundry adopts it and makes it part of its official
release so that NoRouter stays in step with GoRouter updates.
Thanks,
Owais
Thinking a little more about your question Mohamed. In his presentation
Mike might have made reference to people making adhoc changes to F5. In
our organization today we have a handfull of engineers that have LTM
access. And some of our existing applications that we're moving to Cloud
Foundry do require some specific LTM config or behaviour since they
required that behaviour previously. One of the benfits of NoRouter is it
simplifies the porting of these applications to Cloud Foundry since they
can make the same or similar changes to the LTM that they needed before.
We definitly view these use cases as a hacks though and are using them to
compile a list of official Service Brokers we need to eventually provide
to
formalize this functionality in NoRouter. Other orgs may not have the
requirement and would prefer that nobody touches the LTM. That type of
org
would work well with NoRouter as well.
Hope that helps.
Mike
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Mike Youngstrom <youngm(a)gmail.com> wrote:Thanks for responding Mohamed.*************************************
Help me understand what you mean when you refer to opening up the LTM to
developers. NoRouter itself must have access to the LTM to update app
pool
members and such but end users/developers themselves will not actually
have
direct access to the LTM.
Some of the features Mike mentioned in his presentation were more a
comment on what is possible if we enable a feature to do so. When/If
NoRouter were to expose some of that functionality it would most likely
by
done using a Service Broker. For example, if an application wishes to
provide a custom OOS page we wouldn't give the developer direct access
to
the LTM to configure an OOS page, instead, I think we'd provide an OOS
Page
Service Broker. When created and bound to an application it would
prompt
NoRouter to configure the virtual server to use that Custom OOS page for
all of the routers mapped to that application. Keeping the details
sufficiently removed from the developer.
Does that help answer your question?
Mike
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Mohamed, Owais <
Owais.Mohamed(a)covisint.com> wrote:Apologize for restarting this thread after a few weeks.
That?s right Mike. Once the LTM opens up to the developers they might
start putting in too much functionality into the Load Balancer like
filters, interceptors. By using NoRouter the LTM will have to be
opened up
to the developer team.
I know that there has to be discipline and access control. But was
just
putting it out as con in the NoRouter Section.
Hoping that Chip does not have concerns with discussing NoRouter here.
Let me know and I can take this discussion offline.
From: Mike Youngstrom <youngm(a)gmail.com>
Date: Monday, May 18, 2015 at 3:22 PM
To: Chip Childers <cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org>
Cc: Owais Mohamed <owais.mohamed(a)covisint.com>, "
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org" <cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org>
Subject: Re: [cf-dev] TCP Router VS NoRouter
Hi Owais,
What are you referring to when you say you're concerned about the LTM
becoming a Monolith? Too much functionality in one component? Too
much of
the system depending on one component?
Chip,
Hopefully it's ok to discuss NoRouter here even though it isn't an
official CF project. Let us know if it is not.
Mike
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Chip Childers <
cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org> wrote:The "norouter", while interesting, isn't the official CF project
approach to HTTP traffic routing. The TCP router is being built to
support
TCP routing as a general solution, with the goal of it becoming an
official
part of the CF release when ready.
-chip
Chip Childers | Technology Chief of Staff | Cloud Foundry Foundation
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Mohamed, Owais <
Owais.Mohamed(a)covisint.com> wrote:Hi,
I attended sessions on both TCP Router (Cloud Foundry and IOT
protocol support by Atul Kshirsagar) and NoRouter (Norouter: Running
Cloud Foundry without the Gorouter by Mike Heath).
I just wanted to start a discussion on the pros and cons of each
approach.
As personal opinion I think NoRouter is a simpler approach and can
definitely be made to support IOT protocols. The main drawback I see
with
the NoRouter is the danger of the LTM becoming a Monolith.
Any suggestions\ideas?
Regards,
Owais
_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev
Mike Youngstrom <youngm@...>
Thinking a little more about your question Mohamed. In his presentation
Mike might have made reference to people making adhoc changes to F5. In
our organization today we have a handfull of engineers that have LTM
access. And some of our existing applications that we're moving to Cloud
Foundry do require some specific LTM config or behaviour since they
required that behaviour previously. One of the benfits of NoRouter is it
simplifies the porting of these applications to Cloud Foundry since they
can make the same or similar changes to the LTM that they needed before.
We definitly view these use cases as a hacks though and are using them to
compile a list of official Service Brokers we need to eventually provide to
formalize this functionality in NoRouter. Other orgs may not have the
requirement and would prefer that nobody touches the LTM. That type of org
would work well with NoRouter as well.
Hope that helps.
Mike
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Mike might have made reference to people making adhoc changes to F5. In
our organization today we have a handfull of engineers that have LTM
access. And some of our existing applications that we're moving to Cloud
Foundry do require some specific LTM config or behaviour since they
required that behaviour previously. One of the benfits of NoRouter is it
simplifies the porting of these applications to Cloud Foundry since they
can make the same or similar changes to the LTM that they needed before.
We definitly view these use cases as a hacks though and are using them to
compile a list of official Service Brokers we need to eventually provide to
formalize this functionality in NoRouter. Other orgs may not have the
requirement and would prefer that nobody touches the LTM. That type of org
would work well with NoRouter as well.
Hope that helps.
Mike
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Mike Youngstrom <youngm(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for responding Mohamed.
Help me understand what you mean when you refer to opening up the LTM to
developers. NoRouter itself must have access to the LTM to update app pool
members and such but end users/developers themselves will not actually have
direct access to the LTM.
Some of the features Mike mentioned in his presentation were more a
comment on what is possible if we enable a feature to do so. When/If
NoRouter were to expose some of that functionality it would most likely by
done using a Service Broker. For example, if an application wishes to
provide a custom OOS page we wouldn't give the developer direct access to
the LTM to configure an OOS page, instead, I think we'd provide an OOS Page
Service Broker. When created and bound to an application it would prompt
NoRouter to configure the virtual server to use that Custom OOS page for
all of the routers mapped to that application. Keeping the details
sufficiently removed from the developer.
Does that help answer your question?
Mike
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Mohamed, Owais <
Owais.Mohamed(a)covisint.com> wrote:Apologize for restarting this thread after a few weeks.
That’s right Mike. Once the LTM opens up to the developers they might
start putting in too much functionality into the Load Balancer like
filters, interceptors. By using NoRouter the LTM will have to be opened up
to the developer team.
I know that there has to be discipline and access control. But was just
putting it out as con in the NoRouter Section.
Hoping that Chip does not have concerns with discussing NoRouter here.
Let me know and I can take this discussion offline.
From: Mike Youngstrom <youngm(a)gmail.com>
Date: Monday, May 18, 2015 at 3:22 PM
To: Chip Childers <cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org>
Cc: Owais Mohamed <owais.mohamed(a)covisint.com>, "
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org" <cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org>
Subject: Re: [cf-dev] TCP Router VS NoRouter
Hi Owais,
What are you referring to when you say you're concerned about the LTM
becoming a Monolith? Too much functionality in one component? Too much of
the system depending on one component?
Chip,
Hopefully it's ok to discuss NoRouter here even though it isn't an
official CF project. Let us know if it is not.
Mike
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Chip Childers <
cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org> wrote:The "norouter", while interesting, isn't the official CF project
approach to HTTP traffic routing. The TCP router is being built to support
TCP routing as a general solution, with the goal of it becoming an official
part of the CF release when ready.
-chip
Chip Childers | Technology Chief of Staff | Cloud Foundry Foundation
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Mohamed, Owais <
Owais.Mohamed(a)covisint.com> wrote:Hi,_______________________________________________
I attended sessions on both TCP Router (Cloud Foundry and IOT
protocol support by Atul Kshirsagar) and NoRouter (Norouter: Running
Cloud Foundry without the Gorouter by Mike Heath).
I just wanted to start a discussion on the pros and cons of each
approach.
As personal opinion I think NoRouter is a simpler approach and can
definitely be made to support IOT protocols. The main drawback I see with
the NoRouter is the danger of the LTM becoming a Monolith.
Any suggestions\ideas?
Regards,
Owais
_______________________________________________
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
Mike Youngstrom <youngm@...>
Thanks for responding Mohamed.
Help me understand what you mean when you refer to opening up the LTM to
developers. NoRouter itself must have access to the LTM to update app pool
members and such but end users/developers themselves will not actually have
direct access to the LTM.
Some of the features Mike mentioned in his presentation were more a comment
on what is possible if we enable a feature to do so. When/If NoRouter were
to expose some of that functionality it would most likely by done using a
Service Broker. For example, if an application wishes to provide a custom
OOS page we wouldn't give the developer direct access to the LTM to
configure an OOS page, instead, I think we'd provide an OOS Page Service
Broker. When created and bound to an application it would prompt NoRouter
to configure the virtual server to use that Custom OOS page for all of the
routers mapped to that application. Keeping the details sufficiently
removed from the developer.
Does that help answer your question?
Mike
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Mohamed, Owais <Owais.Mohamed(a)covisint.com>
wrote:
Help me understand what you mean when you refer to opening up the LTM to
developers. NoRouter itself must have access to the LTM to update app pool
members and such but end users/developers themselves will not actually have
direct access to the LTM.
Some of the features Mike mentioned in his presentation were more a comment
on what is possible if we enable a feature to do so. When/If NoRouter were
to expose some of that functionality it would most likely by done using a
Service Broker. For example, if an application wishes to provide a custom
OOS page we wouldn't give the developer direct access to the LTM to
configure an OOS page, instead, I think we'd provide an OOS Page Service
Broker. When created and bound to an application it would prompt NoRouter
to configure the virtual server to use that Custom OOS page for all of the
routers mapped to that application. Keeping the details sufficiently
removed from the developer.
Does that help answer your question?
Mike
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Mohamed, Owais <Owais.Mohamed(a)covisint.com>
wrote:
Apologize for restarting this thread after a few weeks.
That’s right Mike. Once the LTM opens up to the developers they might
start putting in too much functionality into the Load Balancer like
filters, interceptors. By using NoRouter the LTM will have to be opened up
to the developer team.
I know that there has to be discipline and access control. But was just
putting it out as con in the NoRouter Section.
Hoping that Chip does not have concerns with discussing NoRouter here.
Let me know and I can take this discussion offline.
From: Mike Youngstrom <youngm(a)gmail.com>
Date: Monday, May 18, 2015 at 3:22 PM
To: Chip Childers <cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org>
Cc: Owais Mohamed <owais.mohamed(a)covisint.com>, "
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org" <cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org>
Subject: Re: [cf-dev] TCP Router VS NoRouter
Hi Owais,
What are you referring to when you say you're concerned about the LTM
becoming a Monolith? Too much functionality in one component? Too much of
the system depending on one component?
Chip,
Hopefully it's ok to discuss NoRouter here even though it isn't an
official CF project. Let us know if it is not.
Mike
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Chip Childers <
cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org> wrote:The "norouter", while interesting, isn't the official CF project approach
to HTTP traffic routing. The TCP router is being built to support TCP
routing as a general solution, with the goal of it becoming an official
part of the CF release when ready.
-chip
Chip Childers | Technology Chief of Staff | Cloud Foundry Foundation
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Mohamed, Owais <
Owais.Mohamed(a)covisint.com> wrote:Hi,_______________________________________________
I attended sessions on both TCP Router (Cloud Foundry and IOT
protocol support by Atul Kshirsagar) and NoRouter (Norouter: Running
Cloud Foundry without the Gorouter by Mike Heath).
I just wanted to start a discussion on the pros and cons of each
approach.
As personal opinion I think NoRouter is a simpler approach and can
definitely be made to support IOT protocols. The main drawback I see with
the NoRouter is the danger of the LTM becoming a Monolith.
Any suggestions\ideas?
Regards,
Owais
_______________________________________________
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
Owais Mohamed
Apologize for restarting this thread after a few weeks.
That's right Mike. Once the LTM opens up to the developers they might start putting in too much functionality into the Load Balancer like filters, interceptors. By using NoRouter the LTM will have to be opened up to the developer team.
I know that there has to be discipline and access control. But was just putting it out as con in the NoRouter Section.
Hoping that Chip does not have concerns with discussing NoRouter here. Let me know and I can take this discussion offline.
From: Mike Youngstrom <youngm(a)gmail.com<mailto:youngm(a)gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, May 18, 2015 at 3:22 PM
To: Chip Childers <cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org<mailto:cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org>>
Cc: Owais Mohamed <owais.mohamed(a)covisint.com<mailto:owais.mohamed(a)covisint.com>>, "cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org<mailto:cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org>" <cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org<mailto:cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org>>
Subject: Re: [cf-dev] TCP Router VS NoRouter
Hi Owais,
What are you referring to when you say you're concerned about the LTM becoming a Monolith? Too much functionality in one component? Too much of the system depending on one component?
Chip,
Hopefully it's ok to discuss NoRouter here even though it isn't an official CF project. Let us know if it is not.
Mike
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
That's right Mike. Once the LTM opens up to the developers they might start putting in too much functionality into the Load Balancer like filters, interceptors. By using NoRouter the LTM will have to be opened up to the developer team.
I know that there has to be discipline and access control. But was just putting it out as con in the NoRouter Section.
Hoping that Chip does not have concerns with discussing NoRouter here. Let me know and I can take this discussion offline.
From: Mike Youngstrom <youngm(a)gmail.com<mailto:youngm(a)gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, May 18, 2015 at 3:22 PM
To: Chip Childers <cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org<mailto:cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org>>
Cc: Owais Mohamed <owais.mohamed(a)covisint.com<mailto:owais.mohamed(a)covisint.com>>, "cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org<mailto:cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org>" <cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org<mailto:cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org>>
Subject: Re: [cf-dev] TCP Router VS NoRouter
Hi Owais,
What are you referring to when you say you're concerned about the LTM becoming a Monolith? Too much functionality in one component? Too much of the system depending on one component?
Chip,
Hopefully it's ok to discuss NoRouter here even though it isn't an official CF project. Let us know if it is not.
Mike
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Chip Childers <cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org<mailto:cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org>> wrote:
The "norouter", while interesting, isn't the official CF project approach to HTTP traffic routing. The TCP router is being built to support TCP routing as a general solution, with the goal of it becoming an official part of the CF release when ready.
-chip
Chip Childers | Technology Chief of Staff | Cloud Foundry Foundation
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Mohamed, Owais <Owais.Mohamed(a)covisint.com<mailto:Owais.Mohamed(a)covisint.com>> wrote:
Hi,
I attended sessions on both TCP Router (Cloud Foundry and IOT protocol support by Atul Kshirsagar) and NoRouter (Norouter: Running Cloud Foundry without the Gorouter by Mike Heath).
I just wanted to start a discussion on the pros and cons of each approach.
As personal opinion I think NoRouter is a simpler approach and can definitely be made to support IOT protocols. The main drawback I see with the NoRouter is the danger of the LTM becoming a Monolith.
Any suggestions\ideas?
Regards,
Owais
_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org<mailto:cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org>
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev
_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org<mailto:cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org>
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev
The "norouter", while interesting, isn't the official CF project approach to HTTP traffic routing. The TCP router is being built to support TCP routing as a general solution, with the goal of it becoming an official part of the CF release when ready.
-chip
Chip Childers | Technology Chief of Staff | Cloud Foundry Foundation
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Mohamed, Owais <Owais.Mohamed(a)covisint.com<mailto:Owais.Mohamed(a)covisint.com>> wrote:
Hi,
I attended sessions on both TCP Router (Cloud Foundry and IOT protocol support by Atul Kshirsagar) and NoRouter (Norouter: Running Cloud Foundry without the Gorouter by Mike Heath).
I just wanted to start a discussion on the pros and cons of each approach.
As personal opinion I think NoRouter is a simpler approach and can definitely be made to support IOT protocols. The main drawback I see with the NoRouter is the danger of the LTM becoming a Monolith.
Any suggestions\ideas?
Regards,
Owais
_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org<mailto:cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org>
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev
_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org<mailto:cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org>
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev
Mike Youngstrom <youngm@...>
Hi Owais,
What are you referring to when you say you're concerned about the LTM
becoming a Monolith? Too much functionality in one component? Too much of
the system depending on one component?
Chip,
Hopefully it's ok to discuss NoRouter here even though it isn't an official
CF project. Let us know if it is not.
Mike
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Chip Childers <cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org>
wrote:
What are you referring to when you say you're concerned about the LTM
becoming a Monolith? Too much functionality in one component? Too much of
the system depending on one component?
Chip,
Hopefully it's ok to discuss NoRouter here even though it isn't an official
CF project. Let us know if it is not.
Mike
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Chip Childers <cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org>
wrote:
The "norouter", while interesting, isn't the official CF project approach
to HTTP traffic routing. The TCP router is being built to support TCP
routing as a general solution, with the goal of it becoming an official
part of the CF release when ready.
-chip
Chip Childers | Technology Chief of Staff | Cloud Foundry Foundation
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Mohamed, Owais <
Owais.Mohamed(a)covisint.com> wrote:Hi,_______________________________________________
I attended sessions on both TCP Router (Cloud Foundry and IOT protocol
support by Atul Kshirsagar) and NoRouter (Norouter: Running Cloud
Foundry without the Gorouter by Mike Heath).
I just wanted to start a discussion on the pros and cons of each
approach.
As personal opinion I think NoRouter is a simpler approach and can
definitely be made to support IOT protocols. The main drawback I see with
the NoRouter is the danger of the LTM becoming a Monolith.
Any suggestions\ideas?
Regards,
Owais
_______________________________________________
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
Chip Childers <cchilders@...>
The "norouter", while interesting, isn't the official CF project approach
to HTTP traffic routing. The TCP router is being built to support TCP
routing as a general solution, with the goal of it becoming an official
part of the CF release when ready.
-chip
Chip Childers | Technology Chief of Staff | Cloud Foundry Foundation
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Mohamed, Owais <Owais.Mohamed(a)covisint.com>
wrote:
to HTTP traffic routing. The TCP router is being built to support TCP
routing as a general solution, with the goal of it becoming an official
part of the CF release when ready.
-chip
Chip Childers | Technology Chief of Staff | Cloud Foundry Foundation
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Mohamed, Owais <Owais.Mohamed(a)covisint.com>
wrote:
Hi,
I attended sessions on both TCP Router (Cloud Foundry and IOT protocol
support by Atul Kshirsagar) and NoRouter (Norouter: Running Cloud Foundry
without the Gorouter by Mike Heath).
I just wanted to start a discussion on the pros and cons of each
approach.
As personal opinion I think NoRouter is a simpler approach and can
definitely be made to support IOT protocols. The main drawback I see with
the NoRouter is the danger of the LTM becoming a Monolith.
Any suggestions\ideas?
Regards,
Owais
_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev
Owais Mohamed
Hi,
I attended sessions on both TCP Router (Cloud Foundry and IOT protocol support by Atul Kshirsagar) and NoRouter (Norouter: Running Cloud Foundry without the Gorouter by Mike Heath).
I just wanted to start a discussion on the pros and cons of each approach.
As personal opinion I think NoRouter is a simpler approach and can definitely be made to support IOT protocols. The main drawback I see with the NoRouter is the danger of the LTM becoming a Monolith.
Any suggestions\ideas?
Regards,
Owais
I attended sessions on both TCP Router (Cloud Foundry and IOT protocol support by Atul Kshirsagar) and NoRouter (Norouter: Running Cloud Foundry without the Gorouter by Mike Heath).
I just wanted to start a discussion on the pros and cons of each approach.
As personal opinion I think NoRouter is a simpler approach and can definitely be made to support IOT protocols. The main drawback I see with the NoRouter is the danger of the LTM becoming a Monolith.
Any suggestions\ideas?
Regards,
Owais