-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 255
A103: xDS Composite Filter #511
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
| - matcher: gRPC will not support this deprecated field. | ||
|
|
||
| We will also support per-route overrides via the | ||
| [`envoy.extensions.common.matching.v3.ExtensionWithMatcherPerRoute` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So this means we can have filters defined wholly in the RouteConfiguration? The Listener would no longer enumerate all the filters being used.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, that's correct.
In the future, we'll also add ECDS support, which would be another way for the Listener to not enumerate all of the filters being used, even if there is no per-route override.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A39 says that
There must be at least one filter in the list, or the Listener resource will be NACKed.Is this no longer true ?Note that gRPC will not fail validation if the map key specifies a filter instance name that does not exist in the HttpConnectionManager filter list. This is because during an update, the xDS client code cannot know which HttpConnectionManager config is currently being used.Do we ignore such filters currently ? and will we continue doing so ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This gRFC does not modify A39 in any way. Both of those statements from A39 are still true.
No description provided.