A few comments (mainly on the proposal to piggy-back the load info header in
the responses) :
*) The mechanism may not work in certain setups of the SLB (e.g DSR)*) For TLS,
I presume this proposal assumes that the connections are terminated at the SLB
layer?*) How does the proposal apply to new
I’m Cc: this to d...@trafficserver.apache.org, since I think this is something
some of our dev would be interested in. There are a few other replies to this
thread already, which can be seen on the archives.
As has been mentioned in another reply, I think the header name ought to be
something ^
On 1 May 2015, at 01:30, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>>
>> 4. The backend MUST add the "X-Backend-Info" token to the "Connection"
>> response header, making it a hop-by-hop field that is removed by the
>> frontend from the downstream response (RFC2616 14.10 and RFC7230 6.1). [Note
>> there appears t
On 1 May 2015, at 01:30, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> On 4/29/2015 11:54 PM, Jim Riggs wrote:
>>
>> So, this has come up in the past several times, and we discussed it again
>> this year at ApacheCon: How do we get the load balancer to make smarter,
>> more informed decisions about where to send
On 4/29/2015 11:54 PM, Jim Riggs wrote:
> [ Long message and proposal follows. Bear with me. There are a lot of words,
> but that is because we need a lot of help/input! ;-) ]
>
> So, this has come up in the past several times, and we discussed it again
> this year at ApacheCon: How do we get th
On Wednesday, April 29, 2015, Jim Riggs mailto:apache-li...@riggs.me>> wrote:
Warn out from writing all of this and hopeful that someone other than me
actually cares, I wish you all well today/tonight!
*Worn* out, even! Boy, I was tired!
[ Long message and proposal follows. Bear with me. There are a lot of words,
but that is because we need a lot of help/input! ;-) ]
So, this has come up in the past several times, and we discussed it again this
year at ApacheCon: How do we get the load balancer to make smarter, more
informed de
