kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk>
Subject Re: KIP-103: Separation of Internal and External traffic
Date Wed, 04 Jan 2017 12:34:06 GMT
Hi Colin,

Thanks for the feedback. It's a good question regarding the name `protocol
label`. It was an easy starting name given that the security protocol was
replaced by a label in the listener string. However, I agree that it's
perhaps not as clear as it could be. Maybe `listener key` would be a better
name? It makes it clear that it should be unique in a listeners list and
that it's used to associate a listener to something else (like a security
protocol). Thoughts?

Ismael

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Colin McCabe <cmccabe@apache.org> wrote:

> Good idea.  It would be really nice to be able to constrain replication
> traffic to a specific interface or use different security settings.
>
> I'm having a little trouble understanding the "protocol label" concept.
> Clearly protocol labels map to protocols, but they also seem to identify
> particular types of traffic.  Would it be more appropriate to call these
> "traffic types" or "endpoint types"?  Or am I misunderstanding the
> proposal?
>
> cheers,
> Colin
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016, at 08:00, Ismael Juma wrote:
> > I've updated the KIP to:
> >
> > 1. Include the ability to set different security configs depending on the
> > protocol label.
> > 2. Include the mapping from protocol label to security protocol in ZK and
> > UpdateMetadataRequest.
> > 3. More items in the "Rejected Alternatives" section.
> > 4. Take into account old ZooKeeper-based consumers.
> >
> > Feedback is appreciated as always.
> >
> > I'm particularly interested in people's opinions on the config format as
> > I
> > am still unsure when it comes to the proposed format versus the first
> > rejected alternative.
> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Ismael Juma <ismael@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Rajini.
> > >
> > > I agree that it's worth thinking about what a fully configurable label
> > > would look like. I'll update the KIP.
> > >
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > On 21 Dec 2016 10:53 pm, "Rajini Sivaram" <rajinisivaram@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Ismael,
> > >
> > > Thank you for the KIP. This is a very useful change.
> > >
> > > Once you allow multiple interfaces with the same security protocol, you
> > > will soon also need to be able to configure protocol-specific
> properties
> > > for each of the interfaces. To use SSL on internal and external
> networks,
> > > you would almost definitely want different keystores with different
> > > hostname/IP addresses. Similarly for SASL, you might want to enable
> > > different mechanisms, use a different authentication server etc. This
> is
> > > listed under future work.But it may be worth thinking about what a
> fully
> > > configurable 'label' looks like. Would every property now become a
> list/map
> > > like listeners - you would then end up with maps of lists for some
> > > properties. It will good if all properties corresponding to a  label
> > > including listener and advertised.listener are configured consistently
> - if
> > > that is possible,
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Ismael Juma <ismael@juma.me.uk>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > We've posted "KIP-103: Separation of Internal and External traffic"
> for
> > > > discussion:
> > > >
> > > > *https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > > > 103%3A+Separation+of+Internal+and+External+traffic
> > > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > > > 103%3A+Separation+of+Internal+and+External+traffic>*
> > > >
> > > > Please take a look. Your feedback is appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Ismael
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message