Julien, The gRFC process <https://github.com/grpc/proposal/blob/master/README.md> says that all discussion should happen in this thread, rather than in the PR. So I'll reply to your comments here.
I agree with you that the proxy mapper could set the HTTP CONNECT argument to a server name instead of to an IP address. However, that would not be enough to address the case where the servers' DNS information is not available, at least not in the general case, because the client still needs to know the set of server addresses in order to open the right set of connections to load-balance across. As you and I have discussed, in the specific case where the grpclb load balancing policy is in use, then you could in principle make this work, because the set of server addresses will actually come from the load balancers instead of from the name resolver. However, this would require a number of additional hacks: - The name resolver would somehow have to know that when you request a load balanced name, it should return the address of the proxy but with the "is_balancer" bit set. - The proxy mapper would need some way to differentiate between the connections to the load balancers and the connections to the backend servers, so that it could set the HTTP CONNECT argument to the server name for the load balancer connections and to the IP address for the backend server connections. - The proxy itself would have to know how to resolve the internal name of the load balancers. And even once all of those hacks are implemented, this approach still only works for the case where the grpclb load balancing policy is in use. If you want to use something like round_robin instead, it won't work at all. I continue to believe that running a gRPC-level proxy is a better solution for this use-case. On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Julien Boeuf <jbo...@google.com> wrote: > Thanks I saw this. I'll comment on the doc. > > BTW, i'm at an offsite today (and I was yesterday) but this is really high > on my priority list. > > Cheers, > > Julien. > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Mark D. Roth <r...@google.com> wrote: > >> I've created a gRFC describing how HTTP CONNECT proxies will be supported >> in gRPC: >> >> https://github.com/grpc/proposal/pull/4 >> >> Please keep discussion in this thread. Thanks! >> >> -- >> Mark D. Roth <r...@google.com> >> Software Engineer >> Google, Inc. >> > > -- Mark D. Roth <r...@google.com> Software Engineer Google, Inc. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "grpc.io" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to grpc-io+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to grpc-io@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/grpc-io. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/CAJgPXp5ivsNzM2eVwZWKKMm-n1Pa-rzrM9qwtTLKf%3DtrtoJPcg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
