cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sylvain Lebresne (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (CASSANDRA-5899) Sends all interface in native protocol notification when rpc_address=0.0.0.0
Date Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:48:47 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5899?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Sylvain Lebresne updated CASSANDRA-5899:
----------------------------------------

    Fix Version/s:     (was: 2.0)
                   2.1
    
> Sends all interface in native protocol notification when rpc_address=0.0.0.0
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-5899
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5899
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 2.1
>
>
> For the native protocol notifications, when we send a new node notification, we send
the rpc_address of that new node. For this to be actually useful, that address sent should
be publicly accessible by the driver it is destined to. 
> The problem is when rpc_address=0.0.0.0. Currently, we send the listen_address, which
is correct in the sense that we do are bind on it but might not be accessible by client nodes.
> In fact, one of the "good" reason to use 0.0.0.0 rpc_address would be if you have a private
network for internode communication and another for client-server communinations, but still
want to be able to issue query from the private network for debugging. In that case, the current
behavior to send listen_address doesn't really help.
> So one suggestion would be to instead send all the addresses on which the (native protocol)
server is bound to (which would still leave to the driver the task to pick the right one,
but at least it has something to pick from).
> That's relatively trivial to do in practice, but it does require a minor binary protocol
break to return a list instead of just one IP, which is why I'm tentatively marking this 2.0.
Maybe we can shove that tiny change in the final (in the protocol v2 only)? Povided we agree
it's a good idea of course.
> Now to be complete, for the same reasons, we would also need to store all the addresses
we are bound to in the peers table. That's also fairly simple and the backward compatibility
story is maybe a tad simpler: we could add a new {{rpc_addresses}} column that would be a
list and deprecate {{rpc_address}} (to be removed in 2.1 for instance).

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Mime
View raw message