Hi Jeremy,
I like the idea that make xml_id and ds.regex at position 0 immutable. Actually
we have suffered some issues on HTTPs delivery services, and I had ever created
issue TC-187 with PR #360.
Besides ds.regex at position 0, the ds.regex at other position of type
HOST_REGEXP is not workin
Hi all,
I am working on a feature to support custom delivery service domain.
Currently in traffic ops, you can configure a “HOST_REGEXP” for a delivery
service with pattern like:
1) .*\.my-subdomain\..*
2) my-subdomain.topdomain.com
I think pattern 1) is well known by all of us. However patter
ot; wrote:
Thanks Zhilin-
Could I use a domain of just “topdomain-cdn.com” or does it require a
minimum of three levels?
Is configuration just in delivery service or does the domain_name parameter
need to be modified too?
> On Jun 21, 2017, at 4:56 AM, Zhilin Huang (zhil
Sorry for missing this topic.
Yes, I think this feature is different with the customized domain feature. If
you are interested, my work is in my fork:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/compare/master...zhilhuan:custom-ds-domain?expand=1
Thanks,
Zhilin
On 8/5/17, 3:51 AM, "Eri
Hi folks,
The multiple subdomain (HOST_REGEXP) looks not working in TC version we are
using. However, after checking the code in latest master branch, I would
suspect if this is fully supported:
1. Based on the code, Traffic Router may not fully support HOST_REGEXP with
“set_number” not equal
Hmm, no response…
I think I should suppose no one is using multiple subdomains in production.
Please response if I am wrong.
Thanks,
Zhilin
On 8/25/17, 3:12 PM, "Zhilin Huang (zhilhuan)" wrote:
Hi folks,
The multiple subdomain (HOST_REGEXP) looks not working in TC
wrote:
> Hi Zhilin,
> Sorry for not responding sooner.
>
> I answered your questions inline below. Let me know what other questions
> you have.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Zhilin Huang (zhilhuan)
BTW, would you mind to give an example on how you are using HOST_REGEXP > 0 in
your production?
We thought HOST_REGEXP > 0 should be very similar to HOST_REGEXP = 0, but
sounds like it is not the case.
Thanks,
Zhilin
On 8/30/17, 12:46 PM, "Zhilin Huang (zhilhuan)" wro
Thanks,
Dave
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Zhilin Huang (zhilhuan) <
zhilh...@cisco.com> wrote:
> BTW, would you mind to give an example on how you are using HOST_REGEXP >
> 0 in your production?
>
> We thought HOST_REGEXP &
ink that's something that we need to
support.
Thanks,
Dave
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Zhilin Huang (zhilhuan) wrote:
> Hey Dave,
>
> Yes, it is much clearer for me now. Thank you very much for the
> clarification!
>
Hi Guys,
Thanks a lot for the discussion. I should put the design earlier for review,
and sorry for the delay. Here is 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
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
page here (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TC/Design+Docs).
I think it would be good to get the document there so it doesn't get lost
over time.
Thanks!
Dave
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Zhilin Huang (zhilhuan) <
zhilh...@cisco.com> wrot
y (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 int
; 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
>
—Eric
> On Apr 3, 2018, at 2:42 AM, Zhilin Huang (zhilhuan)
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:
x27;t get
lost
>over time.
>
> Thanks!
>Dave
>
>On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Zhilin Huang (zhilhuan) <
>zhilh...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the di
Updated the DB schema in section 3.1.1.4
Thanks,
Zhilin
On 04/04/2018, 11:02 AM, "Zhilin Huang (zhilhuan)" wrote:
Good points. I am happy to make this change in the design doc.
Thanks,
Zhilin
On 03/04/2018, 8:17 PM, "Eric Friedrich (efr
group only if one of its interfaces is
found
> > to
> > > be healthy
> > > 1. Once we have server selected, select an interface out of all
> > interfaces
> > > of the server with max available priority.
> > >
> > >
interfaces
(GET/POST/PUT/DELETE) /api/1.2/servers/{:svrId}/2ndips
Don't need change.
Thanks,
Jifeng
On 04/04/2018, 11:56, "Zhilin Huang (zhilhuan)" wrote:
Updated the DB schema in section 3.1.1.4
- Server "PUT" will allow empty IP, but if IP is set, it verify there is
exactly 1 IP record for the server, and work against it. O.w. fails.
Another option can be to have a global param that enables multiple IPs per
server. When enabled, API changes - IP is removed
To be clear, "immutable" here means the IP could not be removed, but allow
modification.
And streaming "priority" is better be Delivery Service based than server based.
Thanks,
Zhilin
On 10/04/2018, 4:12 PM, "Zhilin Huang (zhilhuan)" wrote:
Hey Nir,
22 matches
Mail list logo
