Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Unified rate limiting system #1017

Closed
teadur opened this issue Oct 23, 2018 · 9 comments · Fixed by #2028
Closed

Unified rate limiting system #1017

teadur opened this issue Oct 23, 2018 · 9 comments · Fixed by #2028
Assignees

Comments

@teadur
Copy link
Contributor

teadur commented Oct 23, 2018

We need to come up with a solution to make unified query rate limiting system.
Current rate limiting system forces the application to one machine and is far from ideal for ipv6.

Every registrar has a set limit x of allowed queries.
Every request to EPP or REPP should go to one token bucket.
Rate limiting should be configurable per registrar if needed ( disable or amount )
Rate limiting system should emit metrics about query load globally and per registrar,
failed and completed queries.

The rate, query and session limiting should be done on application level instead of FW level like its done now.

@teadur
Copy link
Contributor Author

teadur commented Oct 23, 2018

#983 defines that we should support prefixes

@artur-intech
Copy link
Contributor

#813

@teadur
Copy link
Contributor Author

teadur commented Oct 23, 2018

#813

I think it doesn't make sense to cover whois/rwhois in same issue because it's different app/interface.
But deciding what we do with sessions remains open question.

@artur-intech
Copy link
Contributor

artur-intech commented Oct 23, 2018

#813 also affects EPP. It's worth creating separate tickets for EPP limits and the rest stuff.

@teadur
Copy link
Contributor Author

teadur commented Oct 23, 2018

The problem is that EPP/REPP should have combined limit so it kind of makes sense to implement them together.

@artur-intech
Copy link
Contributor

artur-intech commented Oct 23, 2018

My point was that those two tickets duplicate each other, at least partly. Correct me if I am wrong.

@teadur
Copy link
Contributor Author

teadur commented Oct 23, 2018

Yep a bit, but as of the new ticket already has more information i would close the older one if any.
The real question here is how we are going to solve the problem.

@yulgolem
Copy link
Contributor

Implemented by https://github.com/yulgolem/shunter , gem needs to be transfered to internetee repo.
Gem lacks documentation & integration with registry.
On hold until 25-06-2021.

@vohmar
Copy link
Contributor

vohmar commented Aug 11, 2022

covered by https://github.com/yulgolem/shunter

@vohmar vohmar closed this as completed Aug 11, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants