I don’t understand why we can’t put the host id as well? On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 2:57 PM Francisco Guerrero <fran...@apache.org> wrote:
> I wanted to close the loop on this discussion and here's how > I would summarize the discussion: > > 1. Prioritize user intuition: Both Jaydeep and Josh agreed that > user intuition should take priority over internal system > consistency, since the storage port "does not reflect how > end-user traffic works in production" > 2. Hybrid format: Mick proposed a compromise format like > "192.168.1.100:9042[7000]" that could show both ports > 3. Broader infrastructure concern: Paulo raised the broader > issue that IP:ports aren't true node identifiers and suggested using > actual host IDs. We can defer this effort for a different JIRA > 4. User experience focus: The consensus leans toward making > audit logs more intuitive for users who are primarily concerned > with auditing client connections rather than internal Cassandra > operations > > I will move forward and work on CASSANDRA-20826. There's > still the open question whether this change will land in trunk only > or if we want to backport it to all active branches. > > Best, > - Francisco > > On 2025/08/18 18:19:55 Francisco Guerrero wrote: > > > Is this host field used for anything other than identification ? > > > > I believe that will be the case for most use cases > > > > > If it's purely an identifier field without need to the format, could > it be in the form "192.168.1.100:9042[7000]" ? > > > > I think this could still lead to confusion for someone without knowledge > of Cassandra internals and that is looking at it from an auditing point of > view only. > > > > On 2025/08/18 12:34:32 Mick wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to bring up for discussion the host field in audit logs, > which currently shows > > > > the storage port (e.g., 192.168.1.100:7000) instead of the native > port users expect to see. > > > > > > > > Background: > > > > - Original implementation[1] used storage port for consistency > with other subsystems > > > > - CASSANDRA-7544[2] enabled multiple instances per IP, making > storage port the > > > > standard differentiator > > > > - This creates confusion for users reviewing client audit logs who > expect to see the > > > > native port (i.e 9042) > > > > > > > > Arguments: > > > > - Keep storage port: Consistent with gossip/repair/logs, maintains > existing behavior > > > > - Switch to native port: More intuitive for audit log analysis, > matches user expectations > > > > > > > > Considerations: > > > > 1. Should audit logs prioritize consistency with internal systems > or user intuition? > > > > 2. Would this change break existing tooling? > > > > 3. Should the change only land in trunk, or backport to all > branches up to 4.0? > > > > > > > > > Out of curiosity… > > > Is this host field used for anything other than identification ? > > > If it's purely an identifier field without need to the format, could > it be in the form "192.168.1.100:9042[7000]" ? > > >
