Are you 100% sure that the Traffic Router has loaded the updated CZF? If so, what happens when you use an IP within the /20 instead of the network address (.0)? I tried using a network address of a /22 on a 1.8 TR and it hit the CZF as expected. Ultimately what you're seeing is a CZF miss, unrelated to the geo coordinates.
The underlying feature with the coordinates is to select the next best cache group by proximity where healthy caches have a given delivery service assigned. In order to test that, you would need to have a CZF hit in a cache group which doesn't have that particular delivery service assigned to any caches, or have all caches within that cache group with that delivery service in an unhealthy state. Thanks, -- Thanks, Jeff On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Steve Malenfant <[email protected]> wrote: > Jeff, > > I've tried this coverage zone file coordinate overwrite... I might be > missing something. > > I defined the following : > > "us-ga-macon": { >> "coordinates": { >> "latitude": "32.7261", >> "longitude": "-83.6547" >> }, >> "network": [ >> "24.252.192.0/20", >> "68.1.20.0/22", > > > Then issued the following query : > >> curl http://traffic_router:3333/crs/stats/ip/24.252.192.0 >> >> {"locationByGeo":{"city":"Macon","countryCode":"US","latitude":"32.7288","postalCode":"31216","countryName":"United >> States","longitude":"-83.6865"},"locationByFederation":"not >> found","requestIp":"24.252.192.0","locationByCoverageZone":"not found"} >> > I believe I'm expecting "locationByCoverageZone" to find something... > > I tried on 1.6.0 and 1.6.1 (patched with the pastebin above which I wasn't > sure I was suppose to do). > > Would you mind giving me some light on this? > > Thanks, > > Steve > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Jeff Elsloo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
