Cloud Run is providing a domain *.run.app to access the service deployed. I am wondering how Google Cloud Run handling requests from one to another Cloud Run service. Is all the service to service communication internal even we have a custom domain instead of *.run.app?
The definition of "internal" is not clear.
Your request stay in the Google Network. Is it internal or external?
To resolve the Custom Domain, a DNS resolution request (port 53) is performed on the public network, but the content of the request stays in the Google Network and forwarded after the resolution. Is it internal or external?
So, as long as you use Google Services (in premium network option), you don't go out of the Google Network and thus you can consider this as highly secured.
I assume, my answer isn't very clear, in fact all depend if you trust or not the Google Cloud network.
When trying to binding any Bluemix apps to a pre-configured Secure Gateway service, the Secure Gateway is not in the list of services which can be bound to apps. Is there a different way to bind a nodejs app to a Secure Gateway instance?
Applications can no longer be bound to the Secure Gateway service. Binding was possible in previous versions but provided no additional functionality to the application.
To have your application use the connectivity provided by Secure Gateway, your application simply needs to call the cloud host:port provided by your destination.
I want to expose a REST-ful service as an API to the outside world on Bluemix Public. Therefore I have a liberty app, containing a REST service implemented in JAX-RS.
Additionally I leverage the "API Management Service" to secure that app, via Plans, Authentication etc. So thanks to the API Management Gateway I have a secure proxy to my service exposed.
Yet, the app that provides my service remains accessible to the outside via the Bluemix route. So, it can be called without any credentials or whatsoever.
Is there a way, to only have my API Management gateway access the service implementation app?
One approach would be to delete the route of the service implementing app, but how would you then bind the API Management to the service?
Happy to hear your thoughts or alternative solutions.
If your API is running on Bluemix Public as a Cloud Foundry application, there is currently not a way to create a route such that it is only accessible by the API management service, but not the the outside world. You should implement security within your jax-rs application (easy to with web.xml security-constraint) and add those credentials to APIm service if you still want to use APIm to get monitoring, throttling, discovery, etc.
Another option would be to deploy the application in a VM and then use Secure Gateway to connect to it:
https://github.com/IBM-Bluemix/onprem-integration-demo
I have a public Bluemix CF APP which exposes a REST Service. I would like to have the option, that the public url bound to the CFApp would be inaccessible from outside. The REST Service itself should only be usable from other CF Apps in my org, for example over API Management. I don't want to implement an own security mechanism for it, because API Management provides already everything I need to control, which clients will access my service. So some kind of private route inside Bluemix public, only available to runtimes and services in my Bluemix organisation.
This is not currently possible with IBM Bluemix, due to limitations in Cloud Foundry.
All bound routes are accessible from the external network.
If you want to have a private API exposed, you have the following options.
Add authentication to the REST API, managing the credentials as a user-provided service bound to all the apps. The API will be accessible externally but only by users with the credentials.
Use an application service, like a message queue, to expose an internal RPC-style API. Applications can bind to the same service and it will only be accessible internally.
After watching the BUILD conference videos for Azure Service Fabric, I'm left imagining how this might be a good fit for our current microservice-based architecture. There is one thing I'm not entirely sure how I would go about solving, however - the API gateway/proxy.
Consider a less-than-trivial microservice architecture where you have N number of services running within the Azure Service Fabric exposing REST endpoints. In many situations, you want to package these fragmented API endpoints up into a single-entry API for consumers to use, to avoid having them connecting to the service fabric-instances directly. The Azure Service Fabric solution seems so complete in every way that I'm sort of wondering if I missed something obvious when I don't see a way to trivially solve this within the capabilities mentioned during the BUILD talks.
Services like Vulcan aim to solve this problem by having the services register the paths they want routed to them in etcd. I'm guessing one way of solving this may be to create a separate stateful web service that other services can register themselves with, providing service name and the paths they need routed to them. The stateful web service can then route traffic to the correct instance based on its state. This doesn't seem entirely ideal, though, with stuff like removing routes when applications are removed and generally keeping the state in sync with the services deployed within the cluster. Has anybody given this any thought, or have any ideas how one might go about solving this within Azure Service Fabric?
The service registration/discoverability you need to do this is actually already there. There's a stateful system service called the Naming Service, which is basically a registrar of service instances and the endpoints they're listening on. So when you start up a service - either stateless or stateful - and open some listener on it, the address gets registered with the Naming Service.
Now the part you'd need to fill in is the "gateway" that users interact with. This doesn't have to be stateful because the Naming Service manages the stateful part. But you'd have to come up with an addressing scheme that works for you, and then it would just forward requests along to the right place. Basically something like this:
Receive request.
Use NS to find the service that can take the request.
Forward the request to it and the response back to the user.
If the service doesn't exist anymore, 404.
In general we don't like to dictate anything about how your services talk to each other, but we are thinking of ways to solve this problem for HTTP as a complete built-in solution.
We implemented a HTTP gateway service for this purpose as well. To make sure we can have one HTTP gateway for any internal protocol, we implemented the gateway for HTTP based internal services (like ASP.NET WebAPIs) using an ASP.NET 5 middleware. It routes requests from e.g /service to an internal Service Fabric address like fabric:/myapp/myservice by using the ServicePartitionClient and some retry logic from CommunicationClientFactoryBase.
We open-sourced this middleware and you can find it here:
https://github.com/c3-ls/ServiceFabric-HttpServiceGateway
There's also some more documentation in the wiki of the project.
This feature is build in for http endpoints, starting with release 5.0 of service fabric. The documentation is available at https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/service-fabric-reverseproxy/
We have used an open source project called Traefik with amazing success. There is an Azure Service Fabric wrapper around it - it's essentially a GoLang exe that is deployed onto the cluster as Managed Executable.
It supports circuit breakers, weighted round robin LB, path & header version routing (this is awesome for hosting multiple API versions), the list goes on. And its got a handy portal to view the config and health stats.
The real power in it lies in how you configure it. It's done via the service itself in the ServiceManifest.xml. This allows you to deploy new services and have them immediately able to be routed to - no need to update a routing table etc.
Example
<StatelessServiceType ServiceTypeName="WebServiceType">
<Extensions>
<Extension Name="Traefik">
<Labels xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/2015/03/fabact-no-schema">
<Label Key="traefik.frontend.rule.example">PathPrefixStrip: /a/path/to/service</Label>
<Label Key="traefik.enable">true</Label>
<Label Key="traefik.frontend.passHostHeader">true</Label>
</Labels>
</Extension>
</Extensions>
</StatelessServiceType>
Highly recommended!
Azure Service Fabric makes it easy to implement the standard architecture for this scenario: a gateway service as a frontend for the clients to connect to and all the N backend services communicating with the front end gateway. There are a few communication API stacks available as part of Service Fabric that make it easy to communicate from clients to services and within services themselves. The communication API stacks provided by Service Fabric hide the details of discovering, connecting and retrying connections so that you can focus on the actual exchange of information. When using the Service Fabric communication APIs the services do not have to implement the mechanism of registering their names and endpoints to a specific routing service except what are the usual steps as part of creating the service itself. The communication APIs take in the service URI and partition key and automatically resolve and connect to the right service instance. This article provides a good starting point to help make a decision with regards to which communication APIs will be best suited for your particular case depending on whether you are using Reliable Actors or Reliable Services, or protocols such as HTTP or WCF, or the choice of programming language that the services are written in. At the end of the article you will find links to more detailed articles and tutorials for different communication APIs. For a tutorial on communication in Web API services see this.
We are using SF with a gateway pattern and about 13 services behind the gateway. We use the built in DNS service that SF provides, see: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/service-fabric/service-fabric-dnsservice, this allows the internal service to service calls with known (internal to SF) DNS names, including gateway service to internal services. There are some well known asp.net core gateways (Ocelot, ProxyKit) to use, but we rolled our own. We have an external load balancer to route to multiple gateway instances in SF.
When a service is started, it registers it's endpoint with the fabric naming service. Using the Fabric client APIs you can then ask fabric for the registered endpoints, associated with the registered service name.
So yes, just as you described your case, you would have a gateway that would accept an incoming URI for connection, and then use that path information as the service name lookup, to then create a proxy connection between the incoming request and the actual internal endpoint location.
Looks like the team as posted one the samples that shows how to do this: https://github.com/Azure/servicefabric-samples/tree/master/samples/Services/VS2015/WordCount