brooklyn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Svetoslav Neykov <svetoslav.ney...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
Subject [BROOKLYN-436] - Thoughts on making the URL an HA member is available at available
Date Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:19:45 GMT

Summary of the issue: Each HA member node publishes a URL it's available at in the persisted
state. For the Karaf build no value is set.
Available at: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BROOKLYN-436

When fixing the issue I'm wondering whether we should stick to the existing behaviour for
inferring the URL or change it a bit. TL;DR - should we use the public IP of the machines
instead?

Current steps for building the URL are:
  * Get the hostname from "--publicAddress" command line option if set
  * Get the hostname from "--bindAddress" command line option if set and not "0.0.0.0"
  * Get the hostname of the local machine (can be overriden in config with "brooklyn.location.localhost.address"
system property)
  * Combine the above with the port the web server is configured to run at (and the protocol)

The default behaviour from above is to set the URL to the local address of the machine.

There are a couple of common uses of the value:
  1) Clients using the REST API will use it to find what's the MASTER of the cluster by going
to any member.
  2) Users going to a non-master web UI will be offered the option to be redirected to the
MASTER

1) Could need either the public or the private IP, depending on where the HA members are relative
to the client using them.
2) Most often need the public URL, but sometimes the local address might be preferred - for
example when connecting by VPN to the member's network.

By public IP here I mean what IP the machine is visible to the world with. The machine might
not have a public IP assigned at all, and be NATted to the internet instead.

Another use case could be to use the hostname from the URL to let the MASTER  configure networking
access for the standby servers.

Given the above I don't think a one size fits all solution is possible. I think we should
keep the existing URL using the local address and provide a second value with the public URL
as well. This will let clients pick the one (they think) is appropriate.

Svet.


Mime
View raw message