The overall work here has gone through several iterations, including a previous design for TxnBox and and YAML based overhaul of “remap.config”.
At the Spring 2019 summit, it was decided this overhaul, changing only the configuration for “remap.config”, wasn’t worth the trouble. The decision was made to instead authorize a complete reworking of all of the URL rewriting machinery. This was based on the full that if the format was to be changed, the change should take full advantage of YAML, disregarding any previous configuration or specific functionality to avoid multiple configuaration changes. It was required that anything that could be done currently could continue to be done, but without any requirement to do it in a similar way. That is, any existing “remap.config” could be converted to the new YAML configuartion with the same functionality. It is hoped that some of this can be automated, but that is not required.
A primary goal of the work was also to be to minimize the number of times the request, and particularly the URL, was matched against literals or especially regular expressions. The existing configurations of various sorts all required independent matching resulting in the comparisons being done repeatedly. This is true both between different configurations and inside “remap.config”.
To avoid that, however, required the new URL rewrite configuration to be much more powerful and general such that it could perform the functions of these other configurations, including
The header_rewrite plugin.
The regex_remap plugin.
The cookie_remap plugin.
The conf_remap plugin.
The cache_key plugin.
This was not as large a task as it might originally seem, as just a few basic abilities would cover most of the use cases. In particular these are
Set or remove fields in the header.
Set per transaction configuration variables.
Set the upstream destination.
Respond immediately with a specific status code. This covers redirect, access control, and similar cases.
Where possible I have designed to provide fewer but more flexible features that can be used in a variety of combinations, as opposed to more specialized mechanisms that work for specific cases.
There are several purposes to this project.
Providing a more generalized set of operations for working with transactions. This primarily involved separating data access from data use, making them orthogonal. This makes any data that can be extracted usable for any purpose.
Consolidating transaction manipulation so that rather than a constellation of distinct plugins with different syntax and restrictions, TxnBox provides a single toolbox sufficient for most needs. A consequence of this is that TxnBox will replace a number of current plugins.
Being extensible, so that it is easier to add new mechanisms to TxnBox than to create a new plugin for some task.
Configuration based on YAML
Standarization, as YAML is a popular mark up language.
Consistency with the future of Traffic Server which is converting to YAML for all configuration.
Exteral tool support - there is no shortage of YAML oriented tools available.
The code and this documentation is under rapid development, sections may already be outdated. In addition, much of this has yet to be implemented and represents future work. Time permitting, this will be made clearer.
Extraction and Selection¶
The previous work on URL rewriting cofiguration was based heavily on direct boolean expressions, each of which would be evaluated in order to select a paricular rule. When that was ruled out I decided it would be better to a more “slicing” style for the configuration, where early decisions would preclude having to check other, no longer possible conditions. For instance, consider a comparison using series of regular expression such as “.*[.]example[.]one”, “.*[.]example[.]two”, etc. as the host. These must be compared, one by one, until a match is found. Do_with TxnBox is possible to first to a (fast) suffix check for “example.one”. If there are multiple regular expressions for hosts in that domain, then those can as a group be checked or not depending on the suffix check, reducing the overal number of comparisons.
In current practice and expected practice, it is generally the case that some aspect (“feature”) of the transaction is considered and multiple comparisons are made to that feature to determine a course of action. That is the model for this work.
The heart of the flexibility in this work is the concept of extractors in format strings. This allows the configuration to reach in to the transaction and pull out data in easily combined ways. This requires two things for extractors:
It must be (relatively) easy to make new extractors. This means the majority of the work should be getting the data, with a minor part being integrating it in to the extractor framework.
All extractors must have a text form of output.
Initially I debated the idea of feature types that wree not strings, but eventually decided that there where a few types worth making exceptions in order to provide more powerful comparisons. Requiring that text output be available is key to making the extractors useful in non-selectin contexts, primarily as values during HTTP header manipulation. Having a single mechanism for accessing data in the transaction was a key design goal, so that it need be written only once to be available for both (and other) uses.
Other feature types are scalars and therefore easily copied. String features (which are by far the most common) are copied around as views but this doesn’t alleviate the requirement to be careful with the backing memory for those views.
The class FeatureView is used to track a full along with the source of the memory for the full. This is needed only in the Context object which tracks transaction local data. For the Config object is is sufficiently efficient to always copy any non-transient string to local storage, as this is only once per configuration.
Context the goal is to avoid copies of transient strings while providing safe access
to strings that are referenced later. When a string feature is used for selection, it is copied
to temporary arena memory. If the string is transient, which means it is referenced only in that
specific selection, then it can be abandonded to be overwritten by a future selection. This minimizes
allocation. In some cases the
Context can do even better and use a string in external (to
TxnBox) memory, such as the value of a field in a HTTP header, and not copy the feature even to
temporary memory. This also works if the string use is transient as described above. However, if
the feature is referenced later, it needs to be stabilized.
FeatureView tracks three cases
Transient - the string exists only in the context local temporary memory.
Literal - the string is in the
Direct - the string is in external memory which is unstable.
These are handled in different ways.
Literal is the easiest - nothing needs to be done as the
string (from the point of full of the transaction processing) is persistent. A
needs to be copied if referenced later because the plugin cannot make assumptions about the
durability of external memory, but on the other hand if it is transient it does not need to be
copied to temporary memory either. Strings that are neither of these exist in the temporary memory
and don’t need to be copied again, it is only necessary to “allocate” the temporary memory in which
the string resides to prevent overwritting.
This is modeled somewhat on the current “remap.config” where once a comparison for a rule is matched,
the rule is selected and no other rules are considered, but if the rule doesn’t match it is skipped
entirely. The behavior of
with matches this, in that one of the comparisons matches and no
other rule at that level is considered, or none match in which case the
with is entirely
skipped and the next directive at that level invoked.
This rule should also (I hope) make maintenance and the associated debugging easier, since a comparsion match limits future actions to that specific subtree, results from other previous subtrees cannot “leak” into the matched one. If a particular directive is invoked, then the path to that invocation is unambiguous and moreoeve that state of things and previous directives is likewise.
It was pointed out this makes multi-tenant easier, because the CDN owner can perform top level selection to “lock in” each tenant, who can then create configuration that cannot interfer with other tenants.
Directive / Extractor Parameters¶
In practice, many directives and extractors work better if a parameter can be supplied. The classic
proxy-req-field which sets a field in the proxy request. This needs two values, the
name of the field and the value to set. Originally this was done by passing in a list as
proxy-req-field: [ "X-txn-box", "active" ]
to set the “X-txn-box” to the value “active”. Overall when using this I found it a bit clunky and decided to support parameters for the directive, so that this becomes
I haven’t managed to get much feedback on this concept, but I think overall the lack of need to do list syntax for such a common operation. One advantage is this can be used with extractors, although this leaves the question of why not use the format extension? The one point is having the same syntax for both is a benefit, which is not possible with the format extension.
Note this prevents using extraction to get the field name. If that turns out to be a problem I would probably make such directives have an alternate form
proxy-req-field: name: "X-tnx-box" value: "active"
This seems satisfactory for the occasional use. Currently I don’t have a use case where extracting the field name is needed and so this remains on the concept box.
Do_with the addition of the
not comparison and suport for implicit “or” in other comparison
operators such as
match, it is possible to implement the “NOR” operator, which in turn is
sufficient to represent any boolean computation. Although this seems to make that somewhat obscure,
in practice use of complex booleans expressions doesn’t occur due to its difficulty in comprehension
of humans writing and debugging the configuration. This structure makes the common tasks and
expressions simpler, at the acceptable expense of somewhat more complex general expressions which
will be rarely (if ever) used.
For example, suppose the goal was to allow requests from loopback, the 10.1.2.0/24 network, and the 172.17.0.0/16 network, but not other non-routable networks. This would be
in(127.0.0.0/8) OR in(::1) OR in(10.1.2.0/24) OR in(172.17.0.0/16) OR (NOT(in(10.0.0/8) OR in(192.168.0.0/16) AND NOT(in(172.16.0.0/12))))
There is no AND, but a bit of DeMorgan magic can transform this to a conjunctive form, expressed in configuration as
or: - in: - "10.1.2.8/24" - "172.17.0.0/16" - not: in: - "10.0.0.8/8" - "172.16.0.0/12" - "192.168.0.0/16"
Note the loopback addresses can be elided because they are subsumed by the “not in the non-routables” clause.
This work is the conjuction of a number of efforts. The original inspiration was the
header_rewrite plugin and the base work in LibSWOC++ was done with the intention of upgrading
header_rewrite. The purpose was to provide much more generalized and expandable string
manipulation for working with transaction headers. At the time,
header_rewrite did not support
string concatenation at all. When the Buffer Writer formatting became available in the Traffic
Server core, it seemed clear this would be an excellent way to provide such facilities to
For a long time work effort was put in to improving LibSWOC++ to provide the anticipated
requirements of the upgrade. However, there was much resistance to moving these improvements back
in to the Traffic Server core and therefore upgrading
header_rewrite was no longer feasible.
The decision to proceed with a fully separate plugin was catalyzed by work on the
plugin. It seemed similar enough to
header_rewrite that having two different plugins was
sub-optimal. Plans were made to do this work.
At the same time work was proceeding on upgrading the configuration for the core remap functionality, to make it YAML. As noted, at the Spring 2019 summit this work was rejected in favor of doing a complete overhaul of core remap, not just updating the configuration. I decided at that point that making a plugin to demonstrate my proposed configuration and functionality was the best way to move forward. Going directly to a rewrite of the core code was such a big step that it was likely to get bogged down. A plugin, on the other hand, would be completely separate and not subject to the friction of work on the core. In the long run, if this is successful it is expected the plugin functionality will be moved in to core Traffic Server.