You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Description:
This feature request is follow up from Slack discussion with @arkodg .
The functionality for defining multiple rate limits was previously available through RateLimitFilters. However, these filters were removed from the codebase around version 0.6.0. A new CRD named BackendTrafficPolicy was introduced, and the rateLimit field now belongs to this CRD.
It would be beneficial to be able to define multiple rate limits again for entire paths within BackendTrafficPolicy. This would allow for a use case where a "basic" rate limit could be applied to unauthenticated clients, while a stricter "proper" rate limit could be applied to users with valid JWT authentication (basic authentication is a separate consideration).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
keeping this issue open so we can consider adding path and method (relates to #4448) as first class fields in the API so users dont need to rely on the pseudo headers
arkodg
changed the title
feat: Multiple Rate Limiting option (again)
Ratelimit based on path and method
Oct 23, 2024
Description:
This feature request is follow up from Slack discussion with @arkodg .
The functionality for defining multiple rate limits was previously available through
RateLimitFilters
. However, these filters were removed from the codebase around version 0.6.0. A new CRD namedBackendTrafficPolicy
was introduced, and therateLimit
field now belongs to this CRD.It would be beneficial to be able to define multiple rate limits again for entire paths within
BackendTrafficPolicy
. This would allow for a use case where a "basic" rate limit could be applied to unauthenticated clients, while a stricter "proper" rate limit could be applied to users with valid JWT authentication (basic authentication is a separate consideration).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: