RE: [squid-users] ICP link load-balancing... without ICP?

G'day squid-users,

I've had 2 enquires about this so far. Unfortunately, the quick hack we have
working currently is a mixture of various licensed bits and pieces, so I
don't think we can release it. I'm thinking of putting together something
new that I can fully open source, but I don't know if I'll find the time.

In the mean time, here's what we did.

We set up a "ICPmap" proxy on a local box using specific TCP and UDP ports.
We then pointed Squid at this proxy instead of the ICP-blocked upstream
parent. The ICPmap proxy simply port-forwards the TCP port to the upstream
proxy's http port. For UDP, the ICPmap proxy sends out an ICMP ping for
every incoming ICP message, and sends an ICP_MISS back when the ICMP ping
returns.

Anyone else interested in making an Open Source "ICPmap proxy"?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Peña, Botp" [SMTP:botp@delmonte-phil.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 10:46 AM
> To: 'squid-users@squid-cache.org'
> Subject: RE: [squid-users] ICP link load-balancing... without ICP?
>
> Hi Don, is this a squid hack or conf conf?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BAARDA, Don [mailto:don.baarda@baesystems.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 9:21 AM
> To: 'squid-users@squid-cache.org'
> Subject: RE: [squid-users] ICP link load-balancing... without ICP?
>
>
> G'day squid-users,
>
> In case anyone is interested, we are now running ICP <-> ICMP ping mappers
> on our upstream proxies that don't support ICP. We are using this to load
> balance four links to different parent proxies, two that do support ICP
> and
> two that don't. The links are all of different bandwidths and have
> different
> additional traffic on them. The load balancing is working nicely, with the
> ICP ping times of all parents sitting below 200ms most of the time.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: BAARDA, Don [SMTP:don.baarda@baesystems.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 2:00 PM
> > To: 'squid-users@squid-cache.org'
> > Subject: [squid-users] ICP link load-balancing... without ICP?
> >
> > G'day squid-users,
> >
> > We have several upstream parent proxies on different links. Our links
> are
> > low-bandwidth, and the upstream proxies have heaps of bandwidth. Hence,
> > hit
> > or miss, it doesn't really matter which upstream proxy we use, what
> > matters
> > most is we use the one on the least loaded link.
> >
> > We have been using ICP to nicely load-balance the links, combined with a
> > low-ish ICP timeout and round-robin on all the parents. This meant that
> we
> > used ICP to load balance until all parents exceeded the ICP timeout,
> then
> > we
> > fall back to round-robin. The beauty of this is we load-balance until
> all
> > links are saturated, then use round-robin to minimise the latency.
> >
> > The problem is, some of the ba@#$#ard upstream proxies have started to
> > deny
> > or block ICP. One is using an icp_deny acl because we are getting
> > ICP_DENIED
> > responses, and the other seems to have outright firewalled it. They
> don't
> > seem to be prepared to be cooperative about it. I've tried using the UDP
> > echo port trick, but it's turned off too. Interestingly, our Squid
> doesn't
> > fetch for an ICP_DENIED response, but it still marks that parent as up
> and
> > uses it when our Squid falls back to round-robin.
> >
> > I'm at the point where I'm about to write an ICP to ICMP converter so
> that
> > our Squid's ICP requests go out to the peers as ICMP and get converted
> on
> > the way back into ICP_MISS. Before I go through the effort of doing
> this,
> > has any one else got any thoughts, ideas whatever on a solution?
> >
> > ABO
Received on Mon Jul 16 2001 - 19:20:33 MDT