On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Graf <tg...@suug.ch> wrote: > Hi Tom > > On 29 June 2017 at 11:27, Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com> wrote: >> This is raw, minimally tested, and error hanlding needs work. Posting >> as RFC to get feedback on the design... >> >> Sidecar proxies are becoming quite popular on server as a means to >> perform layer 7 processing on application data as it is sent. Such >> sidecars are used for SSL proxies, application firewalls, and L7 >> load balancers. While these proxies provide nice functionality, >> their performance is obviously terrible since all the data needs >> to take an extra hop though userspace. > Hi Thomas,
> I really appreciate this work. It would have been nice to at least > attribute me in some way as this is exactly what I presented at > Netconf 2017 [0]. > Sure, will do that! > I'm also wondering why this is not built on top of KCM which you > suggested to use when we discussed this. > I think the main part of that discussion was around stream parser which is needed for message delineation. For a 1:1 proxy, KCM is probably overkill (the whole KCM data path and lock becomes superfluous). Also, there's no concept of creating a whole message before routing it, in the 1:1 case we should let the message pass through once it's cleared by the filter (this is the strparser change I referred to). As I mentioned, for L7 load balancing we would want a multiplexor probably also M:N, but the structure is different since there's still no user facing sockets, they're all TCP for instance. IMO, the 1:1 proxy case is compelling to solve in itself... Tom > [0] > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1dwSKSBGpUHD3WO5xxzZWj8awV_-xL-oYhvqQMOBhhtk/edit#slide=id.g203aae413f_0_0
