-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
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
Add a well-known attribute for additional addresses #245
Conversation
Agree with internal: external endpoints are currently presented in |
Well, the idea as I got it: internal communications are something that any node always has, that is expected to be the "main" node's communication, that is usually kept unchanged and that is always present in every node's lifecycle. If we use attrs for internal channels, that "optionality" is not that clear: it changes the "main" Node-Node interaction and mixes communication with the old nodes that do not know they should pass their traffic through the new interface. I think @realloc could help us here. |
It has to declare endpoints for external communication with clients. Internal communication relies on existing mechanism of address declaration in netmap. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It has to describe addresses for external communication. Applications and gates should use those addresses.
According to current behviour, nodes get peer address from the network map entries. Client software either does the same or uses endpoint set in config. If a node admin wants to use separate interfaces for serving clients and for p2p communication with other storage nodes, he sets one more listening address in node config and uses it as connection endpoints in clients (protocol gateways, applications, etc). Adding well known attributes for additional endpoint could simplify this process. Client libraries used in, for example, protocol gateways could correctly discover and use proper endpoints without mixing client traffic with internal replication traffic. |
…resses Signed-off-by: Evgenii Stratonikov <[email protected]>
The task says "external" but wouldn't "internal" be better here? I mean for backwards compatibility we have a single address to which user connects and optional internal addresses to use for storage nodes.
Signed-off-by: Evgenii Stratonikov [email protected]