On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Michael Goulish <mgoul...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> I like your pattern --> { broadcast, balance, failover } ( addr, addr,
> ... addr )
> idea a lot better than my multiple rules w/ same pattern.
>
> I just think runtime-adaptive address translation could be very powerful.
>
> i.e. for failover scenario, think of (old) Qpid clustering -- when one node
> failed, a new node with a new addr stands up -- and advertises its addr.
> It would get added to this rule
>
> pattern --> failover ( addr1, addr2, addr_new )
>
> And the dead node deleted.
>
I agree it is a very tantalizing possibility. I think application-specific
content based routing is the killer motivating scenario as that is
something where you couldn't use a turn-key router, and also not something
you are going to do via a config file.
--Rafael
