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.

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

docs: add proposal how users should indicate application protocol of a service #553

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 28, 2020

Conversation

yskopets
Copy link
Contributor

Summary

  • add proposal how users should indicate application protocol of a service

@yskopets yskopets added this to the 0.4.0 milestone Jan 21, 2020

## Open questions

1. What happens if a user defines different `protocol` tag for the same `service` in different `Dataplanes` ?
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We need this information when generating inbound listeners, right? We generate listener for a given dataplane, so if one DP is defined with TCP then TCP listener will be generated, if DP is defined with HTTP then HTTP listener will be generated.

- api:
rest:
spec:
url: https://generator.swagger.io/api/swagger.json
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What can we do with such information?
LinkerD has this to generate endpoints for which then metrics are collected, but we don't need it once generate listener with http connection manager filter.

- port: 7070
name: http-metrics # `http` protocol in the `name`
- port: 6060
name: somethinggrpc # `grpc` protocol in the `name`
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What if I have both in the name? Example: grpc-http-bridge

Copy link
Contributor

@subnetmarco subnetmarco left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For now - in order to not make too many changes at once - let's add protocol and call it a day. As our use-cases get bigger, we may need to consider adding something similar to service profiles, but we can make this decision another time.

@yskopets yskopets merged commit 510c2cd into master Feb 28, 2020
@devadvocado devadvocado deleted the docs/proposal-l7-protocols branch March 30, 2020 13:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants