Yes; the feature went into 1.5.x. -- Thanks, Jeff
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Steve Malenfant <[email protected]> wrote: > I didn't know about this which is good information. Does that work on > Traffic Router 1.6? > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Jeff and I had a quick Slack convo, so I’ll add a followup summary here in >> case anyone else is interested. >> >> Cache Group location (lat/long) is configured in Traffic Ops today (and is >> used for computing distance from Maxmind Geolocation). >> >> You can also configure the location (lat/long) for a Cache Group in the >> CoverageZone file (example below). >> >> When this location is configured (and Jeff’s suggested logic fix from >> below is applied) and all caches in the mapped cache group are unavailable, >> TR will send a client request to the cache group that is closest to the >> original mapped group. >> >> Example CZF w/ cache location >> ----- >> "coverageZones": { >> “edge-cg-1": { >> "network6": [ >> ... >> ], >> "network": [ >> ... >> ], >> "coordinates": { >> "longitude": “-75.3342", >> "latitude": “42.555" >> } >> }, >> >> >> —Eric >> >> >> > On Jan 5, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Jeff Elsloo <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > If we applied the proposed change, given your scenario we should fall >> > through to the return statement that calls getClosestCacheLocation(). >> > That method will order all cache groups based on their lat/long and >> > the lat/long of the cache group we hit on in the CZF. Once the list is >> > ordered, we iterate through the list until we find a cache group that >> > has available caches for that DS. >> > >> > BTW, the stuff on line 536 is likely to produce the exact same result >> > as the check that precedes it. networkNode.getLoc() will return the >> > string name of the cache group, so when we find the CacheLocation, it >> > will be the same as what we had just checked. We could probably get >> > away with removing that part of the method as it's redundant. >> > -- >> > Thanks, >> > Jeff >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Where would TR look outside the assigned cache group to find the next >> closest cache group? >> >> >> >>> On Jan 4, 2017, at 11:25 AM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Jan 3, 2017, at 5:20 PM, Jeff Elsloo <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hey Eric, >> >>> >> >>> It sounds like the use case you're after is an RFC 1918 client >> >>> associated with a cache group whose caches are all unavailable for one >> >>> reason or another. Is that correct? >> >>> Yes, exactly. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I looked at the code a bit, and I think that we can make a minor >> >>> change to achieve the behavior you're looking for as long as you're >> >>> able to put your RFC 1918 ranges in the CZF. >> >>> Yes, we would want those ranges in the CZF. I can’t think of any other >> place they would go. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> There's a small logic gap in the existing algorithm around cache >> >>> location selection and I think if we fix that (two line change), we >> >>> should be better off all around. I think the only time we'd ever want >> >>> to go to the geolocation provider is in the event of a miss on the >> >>> CZF, so as long as we have a hit there, we should find the cache group >> >>> closest to that hit location that has available caches. This would >> >>> automatically provide the "backup" cache group concept, and has the >> >>> added benefit of doing this selection dynamically based on the state >> >>> of the CDN. >> >>> Wow, thanks for picking up on this solution. Sounds like a strong >> possibility. I like that it can extend dynamically. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> See this to get an idea of what I mean: http://apaste.info/u3PQo >> >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/blob/ >> 249bd7504eeb7cc43402126f3719017e2475ad33/traffic_router/ >> core/src/main/java/com/comcast/cdn/traffic_control/ >> traffic_router/core/router/TrafficRouter.java#L536 >> >>> Does this line set cacheLocation to the closest cache group with >> active caches on that DS? >> >>> >> >>> What does networkNode.getLoc() actually return? >> >>> >> >>> —Eric >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Obviously we'd need to test this to ensure we don't break other >> functionality. >> >>> -- >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> Jeff >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) >> >>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> If all caches in the primary cache group are unavailable, our goal is >> to provide a backup routing policy for RFC1918 clients. >> >>> >> >>> When client IP is an public Internet IP, the current backup policy is >> to assign the client to the geographically closest cache (Distance = >> MaxMind Geo Lat/Long - configured CG lat/long). >> >>> >> >>> When client IP is an RFC1918 IP, the client would not have a maxmind >> geo-loc, so would fall back to the DS geo-miss lat long. We’d prefer some >> more granular control over where these clients are routed to, rather than a >> per-DS setting. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> So with an RFC1918 client, the lookup process would be (step 3 is only >> addition) >> >>> 1) Check CZF for a subnet match (and find a match for existing cache >> group). Assign client to CG >> >>> 2) Check CG for available (online and associated w/ DS) servers. In >> this particular case, assume CG has no servers available to route the >> client to >> >>> 3) Walk the CZF's list of backup CGs and perform the check from #2 for >> each CG. Use first server that is found >> >>> 4) Assuming no server is found in #3, perform geo-location and find >> closest cache group. Use a server from the closest CG if one is found >> >>> 4a) If geo-location returns null, use the DS’ default geo-miss >> location as the client location. >> >>> >> >>> —Eric >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Dec 26, 2016, at 10:01 AM, Jan van Doorn <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi Eric, >> >>> >> >>> How does the backup list relate to the RFC1918-is-not-in-geo problem? >> >>> >> >>> To get to a cachegroup you need to get a match in the coverage zone, I >> would think? >> >>> >> >>> Rgds, >> >>> JvD >> >>> >> >>> On Dec 22, 2016, at 12:28, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> The current behavior of cache group selection works as follows >> >>> 1) Look for a subnet match in CZF >> >>> 2) Use MaxMind/Neustar for GeoLocation based on client IP. Choose >> closest cache group. >> >>> 3) Use Delivery Service Geo-Miss Lat/Long. Choose closest cache group. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> For deployments where IP addressing is primarily private (say RFC-1918 >> addresses), client IP Geo Location (#2) is not useful. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> We are considering adding another field to the Coverage Zone File that >> configures an ordered list of backup cache groups to try if the primary >> cache group does not have any available caches. >> >>> >> >>> Example: >> >>> >> >>> "coverageZones": { >> >>> "cache-group-01": { >> >>> “backupList”: [“cache-group-02”, “cache-group-03”], >> >>> "network6": [ >> >>> "1234:5678::\/64”, >> >>> "1234:5679::\/64"], >> >>> "network": [ >> >>> "192.168.8.0\/24", >> >>> "192.168.9.0\/24”] >> >>> } >> >>> >> >>> This configuration could also be part of the per-cache group >> configuration, but that would give less control over which clients >> preferred which cache groups. For example, you may have cache groups in LA, >> Chicago and NY. If the Chicago Cache group fails, you may want some of the >> Chicago clients to go to LA and some to go to NY. If the backup CG >> configuration is per-cg, we would not be able to control where clients are >> allocated. >> >>> >> >>> Looking for opinions and comments on the above proposal, this is still >> in idea stage. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks All! >> >>> Eric >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>
