atunnel: ingress CONNECT support - #993
Conversation
f9e4121 to
d216b54
Compare
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <keithmattix2@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <keithmattix2@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <keithmattix2@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <keithmattix2@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <keithmattix2@gmail.com>
d85d3f0 to
165454a
Compare
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <keithmattix2@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <keithmattix2@gmail.com>
| type conflictStore struct { | ||
| store.Interface | ||
| conflictTriggered atomic.Bool | ||
| shouldInject func(worker *ateapipb.Worker) bool |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was added to try to reduce some flakiness with OnUpdate being written to/read across tests
|
Heads up: It also collides textually with #978 and #1042: all three edit the same flag var blocks in |
|
Yuan Gao (@ygao-g) I'm not sure I understand; if 0.0.0.0:443 binds dualstack by default, then an ipv6 cluster should still work with it right? The main difference is that #943 was on the egress path and required IP6T_SO_ORIGINAL_DST. The status quo should work with ipv6 only clusters |
|
You're right, and my heads-up was wrong.
One thing still applies: #1042 changes |
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <keithmattix2@gmail.com>
Finishes up the vision from #715 to have atunnel serve CONNECT on the ingress path. This will give us the option to hit actors on other ports besides 80. I haven't wired up atenet router yet because it's nontrivial; we should do that in a second step so we can have a baseline for performance