add proposal to unify cloud edge comms solution #1027
Conversation
|
@zzguang: GitHub didn't allow me to assign the following users: your_reviewer. Note that only openyurtio members, repo collaborators and people who have commented on this issue/PR can be assigned. Additionally, issues/PRs can only have 10 assignees at the same time. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1027 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 47.59% 48.15% +0.56%
==========================================
Files 89 95 +6
Lines 12548 13010 +462
==========================================
+ Hits 5972 6265 +293
- Misses 6060 6209 +149
- Partials 516 536 +20
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
|
@zzguang please fix misspell errors. |
|
@zzguang Thanks for posting pull request about integrating yurttunnel into raven. and i agree with you that yurttunnel and raven are independent solutions in cloud edge comms domain. but yurttunnel is a 7 layer solution for forwarding http/https requests from cloud to edge, and raven is a 3 layer solution for forwarding requests between cloud and edge, or edge to edge. DevOps traffic and business data traffic can use these two solutions simultaneously in terms of their requirements. for example, DevOps traffic can use both yurttunnel and raven. I think that the solution 4 is so complicated because end user should take care 4 components. how about integrate raven-gateway-agent and raven-tunnel-agent into one component? |
Thanks for your comments, IMHO, since we can not merge the layer 7 yurttunnel completely into layer 3 raven, we should decouple them clearly for users. If we fuse them on edge side while keep them separated on cloud side, it may lead to confusions to users when they only want to adopt one of them. |
zzguang
force-pushed
the
raven-tunnel
branch
11 times, most recently
from
1f56fe5 to
7916910
Compare
Current OpenYurt provides 2 independent solutions in cross network domain communication, which are Raven and YurtTunnel, it's hard to maintain from the project management perspective, also it may lead to users confusions on how to select them for their usage scenarios, this proposal aims to unify these solutions to enhance the OpenYurt data plane. Signed-off-by: zzguang <[email protected]>
|
/lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: rambohe-ch, zzguang The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Current OpenYurt provides 2 independent solutions in cloud edge comms domain, which are Raven and YurtTunnel, this proposal aims to integrate YurtTunnel into Raven, and provide an unified cloud edge comms solution to users.
Signed-off-by: zzguang [email protected]
What type of PR is this?
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
other Note