I don't know much about Cloud Foundry but how does it handle things like replicated databases, etc.? There are copious systems that don't do HTTP.
> On Mar 3, 2018, at 10:13 AM, Chris Miles <ch...@chrismiles.org> wrote: > > Thanks Jordan, > > It is a cloud-foundry cloud, the network restrictions are between nodes of > deployed applications. So server instances cant communicate unless I can > tunnel them through HTTP. > > HTTP is the only protocol of communication I am able to use. This is not > currently changeable. > > Chris > >> Curator wraps the built-in ZooKeeper client, so Curator doesn't give you any >> benefit that isn't already present in ZooKeeper itself. You can easily use >> port 80 or 443 as the ZK/Curator client port. But, the ZooKeeper protocol >> (jute) is of course not HTTP. If the Firewall is expecting HTTP it won't >> work. Ports 2888/3888 are only used internally between ZooKeeper server >> instances. Those should all be behind a firewall so should be OK. >> >> -JZ >> >>> On Mar 3, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Chris Miles <ch...@chrismiles.org> wrote: >>> >>> Firstly, I apologise for the cross post, but I think this is a question >>> which may need to be seen by both users, and devs who understand the >>> underlying code. >>> >>> I need to deploy Zookeeper to a firewall restricted cloud-foundry cloud, >>> where the only communication can happen between nodes is through HTTP, so I >>> am looking at ways of getting ZooKeeper communicating through HTTP >>> tunnelling. >>> >>> As far as I can determine, ZooKeeper only allows the configuring of the >>> main client connection via server and client connection factories, but not >>> for the 2888 and 3888 connectivity, which is I think ((correct me if >>> wrong)) node to node communication on the first one, and leader election on >>> the second? >>> >>> Does Curator's connection handling give me any ability to intercept and >>> wrap the connections used for the rest of these ports? (Netty Http Tunnel). >> >
