Good points. I am happy to make this change in the design doc.
Thanks,
Zhilin
On 03/04/2018, 8:17 PM, "Eric Friedrich (efriedri)" <efrie...@cisco.com> wrote:
I would prefer a consistent way to store all interface and IP address
information. Its good database design practice to store similar information in
similar tables (i.e. all IP info in 1 table) rather than keep some IPs in the
server table and some IPs in another table.
I also think this refactoring will give us greater flexibility for more
changes in the future. Outside of this particular use case, we might have
additional features like sharing edges between public/private networks or
having multiple (equal priority) streaming interfaces on a cache.
These future features would be easier if the interface data and IP data is
all organized into separate tables.
I’d also like to see the delivery service to IP mapping be a many to many
mapping in the DB. For this particular feature we will only assign a single IP
(and we can restrict that in the API if we want), but I am near certain that in
the future we would like the ability to assign a DS to multiple IPs on the same
cache.
—Eric
> On Apr 3, 2018, at 2:42 AM, Zhilin Huang (zhilhuan) <zhilh...@cisco.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Thanks for your comments. Please check my reply in another thread:
>
> If we all agreed to use unified tables for all IPs and/or interfaces:
primary, management, secondary, then there need to be two tables: IP and
interface.
> And in the server table, we need to replace the original "interface_xxx",
"ip_xxx", "ip6_xxx" fields with a "primary_ip_id" field. And do similar things
to management IP.
>
> Thanks,
> Zhilin
>
>
> On 03/04/2018, 7:08 AM, "Mark Torluemke" <mtorlue...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I would support an 'interfaces' table (adding some sort of a 'type'
column)
> that would include moving the management and lights out management
> interfaces to that table as well.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 2:39 PM, Nir Sopher <n...@qwilt.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Zhilin,
>>
>> I took a quick look into the spec. Hope to have the opportunity to dive
>> deeper into it soon so we can further discuss it.
>>
>> For now I have a 2 questions.
>> In the spec, you refer to "secondary interfaces", and you have a list of
>> secondary interfaces added.
>> IIUC the secondary interfaces are used as long as they are available, and
>> when down, you move to the primary interface.
>>
>> Why not, instead of holding a secondary interfaces table, move all
>> interfaces to a separate table? Primary and secondary.
>> For each interface you can hold:
>>
>> - Server id
>> - name (e.g. eth0)
>> - IPv6
>> - IPv4
>> - Priority (Integer as flexible as you wish: e.g. "1" for "secondary",
>> "2" for "primary" in your example,)
>>
>>
>> Additionally, it is not clear to me what happens if one of the interfaces
>> fails?
>> Does every interface has a unique DNS name? If an interface fails, are
>> redirects
>> sent only to the available (secondary) interfaces?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nir
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Zhilin Huang (zhilhuan) <
>> zhilh...@cisco.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Guys,
>>>
>>> This was originally posted in another discussion. Resend this in a
>>> standalone topic to catch more awareness. The link for the design doc:
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vgq-pGNoLLYf7Y3cu5hWu67TUKpN5hucrp
>>> -ZS9nSsd4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>>>
>>> Short summary for the feature design:
>>> ---
>>> There is feature request from market to add secondary IPs support on
edge
>>> cache servers, and the functionality to assign a delivery service to a
>>> secondary IP of an edge cache.
>>>
>>> This feature requires Traffic Ops implementation to support secondary IP
>>> configuration for edge cache, and delivery service assignment to
>> secondary
>>> IP.
>>>
>>> Traffic Monitor should also monitor connectivity of secondary IPs
>>> configured. And Traffic Router needs support to resolve streamer FQDN to
>>> secondary IP assigned in a delivery service.
>>>
>>> Traffic Server should record the IP serving client request. And should
>>> reject request to an unassigned IP for a delivery service.
>>>
>>> This design has taken compatibility into consideration: if no secondary
>> IP
>>> configured, or some parts of the system has not been upgraded to the
>>> version supports this feature, the traffic will be served by primary IPs
>> as
>>> before.
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Much appreciated and welcome to any comments. If no major objections, we
>>> planned to start coding this week.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Zhilin
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
