Hi Jonathan,
On January 18, 2016 10:37:35 AM GMT+01:00, Jonathan Morton
wrote:
>
>> On 18 Jan, 2016, at 11:21, moeller0 wrote:
>>
>> Am I right to assume that dust and src host isolation works with the
>same counters but simply ignores one of them?
>
>Yes. That’s explicit in the code.
>> Hence I think it’s reasonable to simply switch on triple isolation by
>> default, in the near future. It does approximately the right thing, without
>> further configuration, in the great majority of practical cases (that I can
>> think of), and to a greater extent than the existing “flows” mod
On 18/01/2016, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> Hence I think it’s reasonable to simply switch on triple isolation by
> default, in the near future. It does approximately the right thing, without
> further configuration, in the great majority of practical cases (that I can
> think of), and to a greater
> On 18 Jan, 2016, at 11:21, moeller0 wrote:
>
> Am I right to assume that dust and src host isolation works with the same
> counters but simply ignores one of them?
Yes. That’s explicit in the code.
> So if all internal hosts talk to one external host, does this scheme then
> equal pure pe
Hi Jonathan,
> On Jan 16, 2016, at 10:05 , Jonathan Morton wrote:
>
> I’ve just committed and pushed the fixes required for triple-isolation to
> actually work. They are small. My tests now pass. This is a good feeling.
>
>> On 15 Jan, 2016, at 10:05, moeller0 wrote:
>>
I do not cla
Hi Jonathan,
> On Jan 16, 2016, at 10:35 , Jonathan Morton wrote:
>
>
>> On 16 Jan, 2016, at 11:05, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>>
>> The opposite sense would be to have the side with the smaller number of
>> hosts govern the system. This would, I think, handle both the swarm and
>> shard cases
> On 16 Jan, 2016, at 11:05, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>
> The opposite sense would be to have the side with the smaller number of hosts
> govern the system. This would, I think, handle both the swarm and shard
> cases better than the above, so I’ll see if I can think of a way to adapt the
> al
I’ve just committed and pushed the fixes required for triple-isolation to
actually work. They are small. My tests now pass. This is a good feeling.
> On 15 Jan, 2016, at 10:05, moeller0 wrote:
>
>>> I do not claim I understand what triple-iso intends to accomplish in detail.
>>
>> The short
Hi Jonathan,
> On Jan 15, 2016, at 01:05 , Jonathan Morton wrote:
>
>
>> On 14 Jan, 2016, at 20:53, moeller0 wrote:
>>
>> So I have not grokked the triple algorithm fully (aka not at all), but I
>> already know that what user’s are looking for is fairness by internal host
>> IPs. Now, sinc
> On 14 Jan, 2016, at 20:53, moeller0 wrote:
>
> So I have not grokked the triple algorithm fully (aka not at all), but I
> already know that what user’s are looking for is fairness by internal host
> IPs. Now, since as I explained before ingress and egress really are too
> flexible to use as
> On 14 Jan, 2016, at 17:48, moeller0 wrote:
>
> I am still curious about the non-NAT fairness by internal IP addresses only
> performance, as far as I understand that is the main request/use case people
> seem to have.
Non-NAT should work fine, once I’ve fixed the algorithm. That’s a major
HI Jonathan,
> On Jan 14, 2016, at 15:45 , Jonathan Morton wrote:
>
>
>> On 14 Jan, 2016, at 16:20, moeller0 wrote:
>>
>> I am really curious how cake behaves in that setting...
>
> I have identified a limitation in the current triple-isolation implementation
> - in fact it only works prope
> On 14 Jan, 2016, at 16:20, moeller0 wrote:
>
> I am really curious how cake behaves in that setting...
I have identified a limitation in the current triple-isolation implementation -
in fact it only works properly if the sources *and* destinations of the flows
are independent. I’m working
Hi Kevin,
> On Jan 11, 2016, at 21:33 , Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/01/16 18:16, moeller0 wrote:
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> I agree the triple mode seems under-documented ;)
> Yes that's true but it is experimental after all - and I'm experimenting
> with it :-)
>>> On Jan 11, 201
On 11/01/16 18:16, moeller0 wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> I agree the triple mode seems under-documented ;)
Yes that's true but it is experimental after all - and I'm experimenting
with it :-)
>> On Jan 11, 2016, at 18:40 , Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello List,
>>
>> I've been looking at
Hi Kevin,
I agree the triple mode seems under-documented ;)
> On Jan 11, 2016, at 18:40 , Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
> wrote:
>
> Hello List,
>
> I've been looking at latest 'triple flow isolation' features in latest
> cake git and find myself confused. It's very likely to be a
> misunderstandi
Hello List,
I've been looking at latest 'triple flow isolation' features in latest
cake git and find myself confused. It's very likely to be a
misunderstanding on my part, although if I'm confused I'm sure others
will, sooner or later, fall into the same trap.
I thought that triple flow was a so
17 matches
Mail list logo
