I think about it again.
{
"upstream_host": "httpbin.org",
"type":"roundrobin",
"service_name": "httpbin.org"
...
> }
and
{
"type":"roundrobin",
"service_name": "httpbin.org"
...
}
are different.
However,
the DNS discovery is not just selecting the upstream via the hostname.
It also allows you to specify different DNS resolvers for the
discovery. For example, you can use the company's resolver for regular
usage (like http-logger's target) but use a consul's DNS resolver for
the discovery.
And the discovery way returns multiple nodes and load balance it
according to the `type`, while specifying a domain in the nodes
returns a node randomly.
YuanSheng Wang <membp...@apache.org> 于2021年3月21日周日 下午6:23写道：
>
> > I think the first type is not necessarily as we already have dns
> discovery.
> >
> > We can use:
> >
> > ```
> > {
> > "upstream_host": "httpbin.org",
> > "type":"roundrobin",
> > "service_name": "httpbin.org"
> > ...
> > }
> > ```
>
> I do not think this is the best way.
> It was designed like this before there was no `upstream.pass_host` field.
> Although it works, it is not user-friendly.
>
> When modifying it later, two places need to be modified. For users, both
> the upstream address and host should be maintained in one place.
>
> For case 1, I think this style is easy to understand and maintain.
> (if he/she want to change the address, just update `upstream_host`)
>
> ```1
> {
> "upstream_host": "httpbin.org" # send request to `httpbin.org` with
> same host name
> }
> ```
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 7:20 PM Zexuan Luo <spacewan...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I think the first type is not necessarily as we already have dns discovery.
> >
> > We can use:
> >
> > ```
> > {
> > "upstream_host": "httpbin.org",
> > "type":"roundrobin",
> > "service_name": "httpbin.org"
> > ...
> > }
> > ```
> >
> > YuanSheng Wang <membp...@apache.org> 于2021年3月19日周五 下午6:55写道：
> > >
> > > I think we can make the `upstream.node` and `upstream.type` optional.
> > > We can support those three ways:
> > >
> > > ```1
> > > {
> > > "upstream_host": "httpbin.org" # send request to `httpbin.org` with
> > > same host name
> > > }
> > > ```
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > >
> > > ```2
> > > {
> > > "upstream_host": "httpbin.org",
> > > "type":"roundrobin",
> > > "nodes": {"foo.com:80": 100}, # send request to `foo.com` with host
> > > name `httpbin.org`
> > > }
> > > ```
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > ```3
> > > {
> > > "type":"roundrobin",
> > > "nodes": {"foo.com:80": 100}, # send request to `foo.com` with
> > current
> > > request host
> > > }
> > > ```
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 1:07 PM Zhiyuan Ju <juzhiy...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > And we need a plan to do some changes on APISIX IMO, anyone would like
> > to
> > > > take this issue?
> > > >
> > > > Zhiyuan Ju <juzhiy...@apache.org>于2021年3月18日 周四下午1:06写道：
> > > >
> > > > > Yep
> > > > >
> > > > > Chao Zhang <zchao1...@gmail.com>于2021年3月18日 周四下午1:04写道：
> > > > >
> > > > >> I think the point that put forward by Ju is same with what I
> > proposed :)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Chao Zhang
> > > > >> https://github.com/tokers
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On March 18, 2021 at 11:55:14 AM, Ming Wen (wenm...@apache.org)
> > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> chao zhang's idea is good for me.
> > > > >> what do you think?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> Ming Wen, Apache APISIX PMC Chair
> > > > >> Twitter: _WenMing
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Zhiyuan Ju <juzhiy...@apache.org> 于2021年3月18日周四 上午11:49写道：
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Any conclusion and plan here?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > There has 1 related PR[1].
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > [1] https://github.com/apache/apisix-dashboard/pull/1603
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Best Regards!
> > > > >> > @ Zhiyuan Ju <https://github.com/juzhiyuan>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Zhiyuan Ju <juzhiy...@apache.org> 于2021年3月17日周三 下午11:22写道：
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > yep, after going through Tyk & Kong, I would agree to use
> > > > >> `preserve_host`
> > > > >> > > to replace the current 3 opinions.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Best Regards!
> > > > >> > > @ Zhiyuan Ju <https://github.com/juzhiyuan>
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Ming Wen <wenm...@apache.org> 于2021年3月17日周三 下午5:44写道：
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> nice！
> > > > >> > >> +1
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> Chao Zhang <zchao1...@gmail.com>于2021年3月17日 周三下午3:12写道：
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > Why not just use one option, "Preserve Client Host”, by
> > default
> > > > >> it’s
> > > > >> > >> > closed, which means the Host header will be rewrite to the
> > > > Upstream
> > > > >> > >> host;
> > > > >> > >> > When it’s opened, the client host will inherited
> > > > >> > >> > when proxying to upstream.
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > Chao Zhang
> > > > >> > >> > https://github.com/tokers
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > On March 17, 2021 at 2:49:50 PM, Ming Wen (
> > wenm...@apache.org)
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > I think there should be only two options: preserve and use
> > > > upstream
> > > > >> > >> host,
> > > > >> > >> > the default is the latter
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > JunXu Chen <chenju...@apache.org>于2021年3月17日 周三下午1:46写道：
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > Hi, Community,
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > Currently we use `pass_host` to mark how to process the
> > > > upstream
> > > > >> > >> > request’s
> > > > >> > >> > > Host header.
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > It can be one of [`pass`, `node`, `rewrite`], the default
> > > > option
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> > >> > `pass`.
> > > > >> > >> > > pass: Pass the client's host transparently to the upstream;
> > > > >> > >> > > node: Use the host configured in the node of upstream;
> > > > >> > >> > > rewrite: Use the value of the configuration upstream_host.
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > Referring to nginx(proxy_pass), tyk and kong, we found that
> > > > their
> > > > >> > >> default
> > > > >> > >> > > behavior is not to preserve the client's request Host, but
> > to
> > > > set
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> > > upstream request’s Host header to the hostname specified
> > in the
> > > > >> > >> > > upstream(service) by default.
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > issues:
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > 1. `pass_host` is not easy to understand, I think we could
> > use
> > > > >> > >> > > `preserve_host` or `preserve_host_header` instead.
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > 2. We should also be the same behavior as nginx, tyk and
> > kong,
> > > > >> not
> > > > >> > >> > preserve
> > > > >> > >> > > the client's request Host by default if the hostname has
> > been
> > > > >> > >> specified
> > > > >> > >> > in
> > > > >> > >> > > the upstream.
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > What is your opinion? Thanks!
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > --
> > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> > Ming Wen, Apache APISIX PMC Chair
> > > > >> > >> > Twitter: _WenMing
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> --
> > > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> Ming Wen, Apache APISIX PMC Chair
> > > > >> > >> Twitter: _WenMing
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > > --
> > > > > 来自 琚致远
> > > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 来自 琚致远
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > *MembPhis*
> > > My GitHub: https://github.com/membphis
> > > Apache APISIX: https://github.com/apache/apisix
> >
>
>
> --
>
> *MembPhis*
> My GitHub: https://github.com/membphis
> Apache APISIX: https://github.com/apache/apisix
