Issue 613 tcp dynamic

[murphymj25]

No description provided.

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[murphymj25]

@craighazen and I have put together this PR to address #613. This allows you to start a "tcp-dynamic" proxy that will start TCP listeners based on the consul urlprefix. It will also match the service based on ip:port. Please review and let us know if there is any feedback.

[murphymj25]

I need to do some more updates to this. If there are manual overrides that don't match the expected syntax, we get a panic.

[scalp42]

@murphymj25 thanks a lot for the contribution. It fixed the issue of having to define the TCP in advance and allow the tags to be the authoritative source.

[murphymj25]

@scalp42 Let me know how your experience goes. We're just starting to get a few services deployed using this, so probably a few things we'll need to update yet.

[aaronhurt]

@murphymj25, @scalp42 Yes, absolutely. Let us know how the testing goes and we'll look at getting this merged.

[scalp42]

I think we're at the crossroad of leveraging consul-template see #613, running custom Fabio binary (which we really don't want to) or just leaving the dynamic nature behind regarding Fabio config file and TCP listeners (probably where we're headed).

[murphymj25]

I found one error where we had the error catch for the dialer after the defer to close the connection. This resulted in a panic if a connection could not be established. I updated the PR with the correct order.

[murphymj25]

Other than this one error, we have several apps using this, everything has been working well.

[madsholden]

Any chance of this being merged and released soon? It would be really nice to have.

[aaronhurt]

@madsholden I'll take a review today. Thank you all for your patience. @murphymj25 Thank you for all the testing and updates!

[murphymj25]

No problem! We haven't encountered any other issues apart from the one update I made. We probably have around 20-30 different services running via this manner.

[aaronhurt]

No problem! We haven't encountered any other issues apart from the one update I made. We probably have around 20-30 different services running via this manner.

Awesome, thanks again.

[sunliusi]

When will the new version be released? This is a great feature

[renesnezic]

You mentioned this will match based on ip:port.. Does it match based on host:port?

I've got a scenario where I'm running multiple mail servers inside of separate docker containers..
Meaning I'd like to route traffic from example.com on ports 587 & 143 to one container and traffic for acme.com on ports 587 & 143 to a different container. And I obviously don't want to hard-code the container private IPs. Would this work?