Hey Eric (and others), I'm resurrecting this thread because the PR [1] implementing this proposed functionality is just about ready to be merged. The full mailing list discussion can be read here [2] if interested.
I've discussed this PR a bit more with my colleagues here at Comcast, and while it provides the functionality we need, we think in the long-term this configuration should live in the Cache Group API in Traffic Ops rather than just the Coverage Zone File. However, after reading your initial proposal below, it sounds like you might have Coverage Zones in your CZF that don't necessarily map back to Cache Groups in TO. Might that be the case? That scenario seems to be allowed by Traffic Router but might not necessarily be "supported" given the CZF docs [3] that state: > "The Coverage Zone File (CZF) should contain a cachegroup name to network > prefix mapping in the form:" If we do indeed "support" this scenario, that would mean that having the backupZone config only in TO wouldn't solve all your use cases if your CZF heavily uses Coverage Zones that don't directly map to a Cache Group in TO. If we should officially support this scenario, then maybe we merge the PR [1] as is, then later we can augment the feature so that we can use the Cache Group API to provide the backupZone config as well as in the CZF. If the config was provided in both the API and the CZF, then the API would take precedent. If this scenario should NOT officially be supported, then I think we should update the PR [1] to have Traffic Router parse the config from CRConfig.json rather than the CZF and augment the Cache Group API to support the backupZone config. I think this would be the most ideal solution, but I also don't want to sign up our contributors for extra work that they weren't planning on doing. I'd be happy to help augment this feature on the TO side. What do you all think of this proposal? TO-only or both TO and CZF? - Rawlin [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/pull/1908 [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b033b3943c22a606370ad3981fa05fb0e7039161b88bbc035bc49b25@%3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E [3] http://traffic-control-cdn.readthedocs.io/en/latest/admin/traffic_ops/using.html#the-coverage-zone-file-and-asn-table On 2016/12/22 19:28:17, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) <[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
