Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

feat(blog): May 2024 update #4936

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
May 9, 2024
Merged

feat(blog): May 2024 update #4936

merged 6 commits into from
May 9, 2024

Conversation

jamilbk
Copy link
Member

@jamilbk jamilbk commented May 9, 2024

fixes #4817

@vercel Vercel
Copy link

vercel bot commented May 9, 2024 •
edited

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

1 Ignored Deployment
Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
firezone ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Visit Preview May 9, 2024 6:29pm

@github-actions github-actions bot added the kind/feature New feature or request label May 9, 2024
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented May 9, 2024 •
edited

Terraform Cloud Plan Output

Plan: 15 to add, 15 to change, 15 to destroy.

Terraform Cloud Plan

@jamilbk jamilbk marked this pull request as ready for review May 9, 2024 17:44
@jamilbk jamilbk requested a review from bmanifold May 9, 2024 17:44
jamilbk
jamilbk commented May 9, 2024
View reviewed changes
website/src/app/blog/may-2024-update/readme.mdx
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A copy-pasted version of this article was accidentally merged in #4916

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented May 9, 2024 •
edited

Performance Test Results

TCP

Test Name Received/s Sent/s Retransmits
direct-tcp-client2server 241.4 MiB (+1%) 242.9 MiB (+1%) 305 (+3%)
direct-tcp-server2client 242.1 MiB (-0%) 244.0 MiB (-0%) 106 (-39%)
relayed-tcp-client2server 225.9 MiB (-1%) 226.7 MiB (-1%) 261 (+21%)
relayed-tcp-server2client 238.2 MiB (-1%) 239.4 MiB (-1%) 378 (+53%)

UDP

Test Name Total/s Jitter Lost
direct-udp-client2server 500.0 MiB (-0%) 0.03ms (+4%) 41.83% (-5%)
direct-udp-server2client 500.0 MiB (-0%) 0.02ms (-8%) 20.46% (-13%)
relayed-udp-client2server 500.0 MiB (+0%) 0.03ms (-62%) 56.06% (-1%)
relayed-udp-server2client 500.0 MiB (-0%) 0.03ms (+124%) 39.14% (-13%)

bmanifold
bmanifold reviewed May 9, 2024
View reviewed changes
website/src/app/blog/may-2024-update/readme.mdx Outdated
Comment on lines 48 to 50
This is useful, for example, to allow access to some services running on a host
(like SSH) to your DevOps team for maintenance purposes, while only allowing
HTTP and HTTPS traffic to the host for the rest of your organization.
Copy link
Collaborator

@bmanifold bmanifold May 9, 2024 •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think I'm following here. We don't associate ports/protocols with policies right? How are we able to prevent a group from accessing a specific port (from the ports opened up using the filters on the resource) once there is a policy that gives that group access to the resource?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah let me reword it. You would create two Resources.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this can still go out given the solution to our problem noted in #4939. Anyone that manages to hit this issue will be resolved in that issue.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sounds good 👍

@jamilbk jamilbk requested a review from bmanifold May 9, 2024 18:20
@jamilbk jamilbk enabled auto-merge May 9, 2024 18:20
bmanifold
bmanifold approved these changes May 9, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@bmanifold bmanifold left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I left one question about whether we should include/remove the example on traffic filtering, but other than that everything looks good.

@jamilbk jamilbk added this pull request to the merge queue May 9, 2024
@bmanifold bmanifold removed this pull request from the merge queue due to a manual request May 9, 2024
@jamilbk jamilbk requested a review from bmanifold May 9, 2024 19:35
@jamilbk jamilbk added this pull request to the merge queue May 9, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit 1876850 May 9, 2024
135 checks passed
@jamilbk jamilbk deleted the blog/may-update branch May 9, 2024 19:58
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@bmanifold bmanifold Awaiting requested review from bmanifold

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
kind/feature New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

05/24 update
2 participants
@jamilbk @bmanifold