Add hostname to DNS service discovery

[m4r10k]

This closes #1854 which is related to moby/moby#34239 and
moby/swarmkit#2325.

Signed-off-by: Mario Kleinsasser mario.kleinsasser@gmail.com

- What I did
As mentioned in moby/swarmkit#2325 and in #34239 it is sometimes neccessary to
resolve the hostnames of the containers from within a service. This is usful as
it provides the posibility for the service software running inside the containers
to resolve each other through DNS. I've looked into the source code and found out,
that some minor changes must be made to vendor/github.com/docker/libnetwork/agent.go.

- How I did it
I've looked at the mentioned file and there are two functions which are
responsible for the creation of the DNS entries in the service discovery.
Therefore I've patched these two functions that in any case, regardless if it
is a service task or a simple container that joined a network, the hostname
will be added to the DNS service discovery. For the hostname of the container
I use the sandbox struct which is available in the context of the code.

- How to verify it

• Wrong

[09:27 mario@ ~/reg]$ docker exec registry_app.1.oc3eudiz86attr7kktjk0jjdl hostname
registry_app-1
[09:28 mario@ ~/reg]$ docker exec registry_app.2.w4mjpo46ikov2xkero552r6if hostname
registry_app-2
[09:28 mario@ ~/reg]$ docker exec registry_app.1.oc3eudiz86attr7kktjk0jjdl ping registry_app-2
ping: bad address 'registry_app-2'

• As it should be (PR):

root@b31f5a9da046: # docker service create --network test_net --name test_srv --hostname={{.Service.Name}}-{{.Task.Slot}} --replicas 2 n0r1skcom/echo
root@b31f5a9da046:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# docker exec test_srv.1.0f9x9a0x46xi7fi81qi57ntyy hostname
test_srv-1
root@b31f5a9da046:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# docker exec test_srv.2.jttdg37ra8hh3yx7gl2nnff42 hostname
test_srv-2
root@b31f5a9da046:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# docker exec test_srv.1.0f9x9a0x46xi7fi81qi57ntyy ping test_srv-1
PING test_srv-1 (10.0.0.3): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 10.0.0.3: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.075 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.3: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.119 ms

-Impact

Even if the hostname of all containers would be the same, this would not be a
problem, because the result is DNS entry like test_srv that will be
resolved to all ip adresses (multiple A-records) like te tasks.servicename
entry is resolved. The benefit is, that all containers can reach each other container
of the same or other service on the same network due to knowing the hostname
pattern, which is deterministic and predictable. Therefore, configuration possibilites
for clusterservices are given -> see #34239 for details.

- Description for the changelog
Add container hostname to DNS service discovery

[fcrisciani]

@kleinsasserm I wrote the big answer on the moby/moby#34239 ticket.
We are not using the hostname today because we cannot guarantee uniqueness of them at the name resolution level so they can start clashing with other services/containers.

We are looking into the possibility to create tasks aliases, from a libnetwork point of view we have all the constructs already in place, like tasks aliases (will be uniquely applied to each task) and service aliases will be applied to all the tasks of a specific service. This change will be in swarmkit side to properly set them.

[m4r10k]

As I wrote in moby/moby#34239 duplicate hostnames wouldn't cause any problems, because the DNS implementation used will create multiple A-records like it does for tasks.servicename which is already implemented at https://github.com/docker/libnetwork/blob/master/service_common.go#L30. It does the same as my PR does, just for the tasks entry. There is no difference.

I agree with you that someone could just pick the service “tasks.servicename” as hostname for the containers. Well, the tasks.servicename will be overwritten, but with exactly the same information as it would get through https://github.com/docker/libnetwork/blob/master/service_common.go#L30. The result will be just the same.

I will try to make the evidence tomorrow because I currently does not have the build on the pc I am writing from.

I also agree with you that there might be a simpler solution, but this PR would add a more generic usability which in turn would provide more possibilities on how to connect services like clusters - I choosed Etcd/Redis because that are well known services anyone knows about. But, for example if a software could not provide a DNS on his own, then this PR would provide a generic solution to get things containerized. In the real world there is a lot of software that would benefit from it.

Like in a multiple of environments, for example Microsoft ADS, the hostname gets always automatically registered to DNS - why not in the Docker case? Why you would like to build up a construct with task aliases if there is a more convenient and in my humble opinion more logical way.

[fcrisciani]

@kleinsasserm won't be a problem if the containers that are resolved by the same name are the same application but if they are not things will start breaking. Today services has unique name resolution guarantees across the cluster.

[m4r10k]

OK, but hey with the stack (and of course service) yml you have to specify the hostname per service. If you choose the same name for different services (the hostname parameter) then this is, a copy and paste error or a usage failure.

Normally there will be no problem because the container hostnames are generated, but there are practical use cases where I and of course others would like to resolve simple hostnames. Like I mentioned before - it is a common behavior.

But maybe, what do you think about if we update the documentation on this point. Maybe here?: https://docs.docker.com/docker-cloud/apps/service-links/#dns-hostnames-vs-service-links

Because this documentation does not work in swarm: eg. a ping to web-1 like in the docs is not possible currently. I mean, when the merge is accepted, we can leave a clear documentation about the cautions there. Dont use the same hostname golang template for different services :)

[fcrisciani]

@kleinsasserm yep that example is definitely too simple, the name is more complex.

docker ps
CONTAINER ID        IMAGE               COMMAND             CREATED             STATUS              PORTS               NAMES
abbb9fc73a5d        alpine:latest       "top"               2 hours ago         Up 2 hours                              test_srv.11.ii7hoziq9n0x1no6f0kt3rnh5
b4f0f9afd6bf        alpine:latest       "top"               3 hours ago         Up 3 hours                              test_srv.2.xn4g83otogra09i8zdwahv777

That is the name that you can ping:

docker exec -it abbb9fc73a5d ping -c 1 test_srv.11.ii7hoziq9n0x1no6f0kt3rnh5
PING test_srv.11.ii7hoziq9n0x1no6f0kt3rnh5 (10.0.0.19): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 10.0.0.19: seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.740 ms

--- test_srv.11.ii7hoziq9n0x1no6f0kt3rnh5 ping statistics ---
1 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 0.740/0.740/0.740 ms

[m4r10k]

Yes! Exactly! That is the problem that I faced at work and that is what I mean. That pingable (resolvable) hostnames (with the dynamic task id) are pointless in a more sophisticated setup because the id changes every time the service is redeployed and therefore it is finally not useful to use in software.

[fcrisciani]

@kleinsasserm still the proposal using the tasks template is a best effort, as I explain before if you request 5 replicas you have no guarantees that you will have tasks slots from 1 to 5. That is not an assumption that you can build on top if you use services

[m4r10k]

Yes that is also true. But therefore, for example, there is Raft. For example if I would like to have 5 replicas and there are only 3 it is OK. Because the consensus is made. It does not matter which of them are there eg, 1,3,5 or 1,2,3 it matters that there are 3. A quorum.

When the missing two are coming online, fine. If not fine. If there are less then 3, fine.

But I really need the possibility to write in the config files --join web-1, web-2, web-3, ... and so on. Simply we cannot use this test_srv.11.ii7hoziq9n0x1no6f0kt3rnh5 there in the config, this is not and will never be (task id) deterministic.

[fcrisciani]

just to understand, why tasks.service_name does not work here if you don't care about the specific instances? that will work all the time also across restarts because the list will always be fresh

[m4r10k]

Because A DNS-RR does not work during a cluster setup where the software needs to connect to the single instances. For example Redis:

https://redis.io/topics/cluster-tutorial:

./redis-trib.rb create --replicas 1 127.0.0.1:7000 127.0.0.1:7001 \
127.0.0.1:7002 127.0.0.1:7003 127.0.0.1:7004 127.0.0.1:7005

In a swarm you have, like in this example 5 containers with 5 different (unpredictable) ip-adresses but the same port on the overlay network. Therefor you would like to create the cluster like:

./redis-trib.rb create --replicas 1 web.1:7000 web.2:7000 web.3:7000 web.4:7000 web.5:7000

If the software is somewhat intelligent, it will write to the config files on this 5 containers the entries (pseudo):
cluster-nodes: [web.1:7000,web.2:7000,web.3:7000,web.4:7000,web.5:7000]

So it will never matter what ip-address is currently behind web.1 or web.5, simply it will work, if the hostname is registered via DNS during the service configuration, via {{.Service.Name}}.{{.Task.Slot}} for example.

This will result in resolvable hostnames which each container can try to contact through the information which is stored in the configuration. {{.Service.Name}}.{{.Task.Slot}} will match entries in cluster-nodes: [web.1:7000,web.2:7000,web.3:7000,web.4:7000,web.5:7000].

./redis-trib.rb create --replicas 1 tasks.test_srv wont work because the code will only try ONCE to resolve tasks.test_srv gets ONE ip and therefore only ONE host; the result will be a cluster of ONE host. Not really useful.

[m4r10k]

Ok, here is the output with the PR active. The result is as it should be, the hostnames are resolveable:

root@f80e466360c1:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# docker service create --network test_net --hostname={{.Service.Name}}.{{.Task.Slot}} --name test_srv --replicas 2 n0r1skcom/echo
nu7kd3y4wre7ea127z80xtsq9
root@f80e466360c1:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# 
root@f80e466360c1:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# docker ps
CONTAINER ID        IMAGE               COMMAND                 CREATED             STATUS              PORTS                NAMES
9413a2742bfa        n0r1skcom/echo      "python3 -u /echo.py"   9 seconds ago       Up 8 seconds        3333/tcp, 3333/udp   test_srv.2.mpxo9l5nz3t9uwxh4wupthcvf
d32ed870e678        n0r1skcom/echo      "python3 -u /echo.py"   9 seconds ago       Up 8 seconds        3333/tcp, 3333/udp   test_srv.1.bup1ydy3gxj7zuwyxzq2q6l8n
root@f80e466360c1:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# docker exec test_srv.1.bup1ydy3gxj7zuwyxzq2q6l8n hostname
test_srv.1
root@f80e466360c1:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# docker exec test_srv.2.mpxo9l5nz3t9uwxh4wupthcvf hostname
test_srv.2
root@f80e466360c1:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# docker exec test_srv.1.bup1ydy3gxj7zuwyxzq2q6l8n nslookup test_srv.2
Server:		127.0.0.11
Address:	127.0.0.11#53

Non-authoritative answer:
Name:	test_srv.2
Address: 10.0.0.4

root@f80e466360c1:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# docker exec test_srv.1.bup1ydy3gxj7zuwyxzq2q6l8n nslookup tasks.test_srv
Server:		127.0.0.11
Address:	127.0.0.11#53

Non-authoritative answer:
Name:	tasks.test_srv
Address: 10.0.0.3
Name:	tasks.test_srv
Address: 10.0.0.4

Now here is what happens, if a user specify the tasks.test_srv as hostname for all containers of a service. The result is as it should be, the service name is still resolvable because the implementation of the DNS resolver is correct. It takes the hostname, in this case tasks.test_srv two times and update the DNS with it. There is already an existing tasks.test_srv entry because of the service start and therefore it gets simply updated. The DNS implementation works as expected, because there are no duplicates. All fine.

root@f80e466360c1:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# docker service create --network test_net --hostname=tasks.test_srv --name test_srv --replicas 2 n0r1skcom/echo
h9602t0u2a67gfpng9cwrqji9
root@f80e466360c1:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# 
root@f80e466360c1:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# docker ps
CONTAINER ID        IMAGE               COMMAND                 CREATED             STATUS              PORTS                NAMES
05248f6e99df        n0r1skcom/echo      "python3 -u /echo.py"   6 seconds ago       Up 5 seconds        3333/tcp, 3333/udp   test_srv.2.w47zkfpl6lu7cnd5k4hwkp6f5
9193d6c0c8d9        n0r1skcom/echo      "python3 -u /echo.py"   6 seconds ago       Up 5 seconds        3333/tcp, 3333/udp   test_srv.1.97f6u06xb370raieamm80vy4c
root@f80e466360c1:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# docker exec test_srv.1.97f6u06xb370raieamm80vy4c hostname
tasks.test_srv
root@f80e466360c1:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# docker exec test_srv.2.w47zkfpl6lu7cnd5k4hwkp6f5 hostname
tasks.test_srv
root@f80e466360c1:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# docker exec test_srv.1.97f6u06xb370raieamm80vy4c nslookup tasks.test_srv
Server:		127.0.0.11
Address:	127.0.0.11#53

Non-authoritative answer:
Name:	tasks.test_srv
Address: 10.0.0.4
Name:	tasks.test_srv
Address: 10.0.0.3

Now at last, I will start two different services with the same container hostnames, joining the same network. Even in this case the result is predictable. All containers get the same hostname and with this PR all containers get registered in the service discovery DNS. Therefore, in my humble opinion, this is a major benefit because due to this PR I can create, if needed, two services which share the same container hostnames and I get a DNS record with all container ips of two services for free. The behavior is as it is always when registering the same DNS entry multiple times - in fact, this is the standard practice of any DNS service. If the user makes a configuration mistake, no existing DNS implementation will reject it, because it is not an DNS violation, its a configuration mistake of the stack/service.

root@f80e466360c1:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# docker service create --network test_net --hostname=all-names --name test_srv_a --replicas 2 n0r1skcom/echo
r0nlhl6oqt3x2rj0burzzypub
root@f80e466360c1:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# docker service create --network test_net --hostname=all-names --name test_srv_b --replicas 2 n0r1skcom/echo
9bqhsns42q63j2y3odvjc6unt

root@f80e466360c1:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# docker ps
CONTAINER ID        IMAGE               COMMAND                 CREATED             STATUS              PORTS                NAMES
c79b025a8bed        n0r1skcom/echo      "python3 -u /echo.py"   5 seconds ago       Up 3 seconds        3333/tcp, 3333/udp   test_srv_b.1.ry7w1sq9i3ah4hq3jma1araiv
a8ed5339246f        n0r1skcom/echo      "python3 -u /echo.py"   5 seconds ago       Up 3 seconds        3333/tcp, 3333/udp   test_srv_b.2.ak7nkyvz8hwdp9v287yvbqp3d
1c3eadc89275        n0r1skcom/echo      "python3 -u /echo.py"   14 seconds ago      Up 12 seconds       3333/tcp, 3333/udp   test_srv_a.1.neyvsnlbjfqz4wl2setdpvp1s
49f159fc6578        n0r1skcom/echo      "python3 -u /echo.py"   14 seconds ago      Up 12 seconds       3333/tcp, 3333/udp   test_srv_a.2.srp8gzrk5k58ojh5iqgrfn9pr
root@f80e466360c1:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# docker exec test_srv_a.1.neyvsnlbjfqz4wl2setdpvp1s hostname
all-names
root@f80e466360c1:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# docker exec test_srv_b.1.ry7w1sq9i3ah4hq3jma1araiv hostname
all-names
root@f80e466360c1:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# docker exec test_srv_a.2.srp8gzrk5k58ojh5iqgrfn9pr nslookup all-names
Server:		127.0.0.11
Address:	127.0.0.11#53

Non-authoritative answer:
Name:	all-names
Address: 10.0.0.6
Name:	all-names
Address: 10.0.0.7
Name:	all-names
Address: 10.0.0.3
Name:	all-names
Address: 10.0.0.4

root@f80e466360c1:/go/src/github.com/docker/docker# docker exec test_srv_b.2.ak7nkyvz8hwdp9v287yvbqp3d nslookup all-names
Server:		127.0.0.11
Address:	127.0.0.11#53

Non-authoritative answer:
Name:	all-names
Address: 10.0.0.4
Name:	all-names
Address: 10.0.0.3
Name:	all-names
Address: 10.0.0.6
Name:	all-names
Address: 10.0.0.7

[m4r10k]

I would like to get this merged, because I currently see no reasons why this is not a common behavior of any DNS and why this would not be useful in a general generic point of view. Furthermore it seems that this PR does not harm any existing functionality. Therefore I would like to ping @fcrisciani, @mavenugo and @sanimej as you are merging PR's against this project. I don't want to be annoying but, if there is any disagreement, please let me know - I would like to discuss it.

If any of my explanations is not clear, please let me know, I will explain it once again. I would like to support this PR because this solves a situation which occurs in real world Docker devops usage.

Thank you!

[m4r10k]

It has been a week now since the last update on this PR and I would like to ask if I can do something more @fcrisciani, @mavenugo and @sanimej ?

[thaJeztah]

I'm not sure this should be merged before a general design is there. Implementing this could easily conflict with the result of that discussion.

Also see moby/moby#24973 which was closed for that reason.

--hostname does currently not do validation, which is "ok" for a local hostname (it's the kernel's responsibility to handle incorrect hostnames, and only affects the container itself), but may become a different thing if it's used for DNS resolution; for example, these are currently "supported";

docker service create --hostname="hello🐳world" --name foo nginx:alpine
docker service create --hostname="this is just something" --name bar nginx:alpine
docker service create --hostname="192.168.1.1" --name baz nginx:alpine

Before going full-steam ahead, a proper design is needed, and alternatives explored, e.g.

docker service create \
    --name my-service \
    --hostname="{{.Service.Name}}.{{.Task.Slot}}" \
    --network name=y-network,"task-alias={{.Task.Hostname}}.{{.Task.Slot}}" \
    nginx:alpine

[m4r10k]

Further discussion is going on on the Slack channel https://dockercommunity.slack.com/messages/C24JNLCHJ/ . I will post updates as there will be notable outcomes. Please feel free to join the discussion there.

[thaJeztah]

Also linking moby/swarmkit#1242, which is where the global design for a DNS schema is being discussed

[m4r10k]

@thaJeztah thx for referencing. As nearly two weeks are gone and as I've got no response on slack about it, I would like to ask once again if anyone sees any problem with this PR. I know about moby/swarmkit#1242 but from my point of view the discussion there is a little bit out of scope because it adds a lot of functionality (external IPAM, external DNS, etc).

What this PR does is to put the hostname of the container into the internal DNS of swarm. Nothing more. Its OK, that there should be a bigger solution but using external IPAM or external DNS will add product specific dependencies which can only be optional. The issue moby/swarmkit#1242 is opened for more than a year and it is understandable because this needs a lot of changes (compose file, Docker client, etc).

So all I got as response is that there might be a problem here and there, but I could not reproduce any real problems. If I register a not conforming (RFC) hostname at the DNS it will be rejected, period. If no one has concrete suggestions, ideas or found problems on the matter with this PR, why dont merge?

[m4r10k]

And the next 14 days are gone without any response. Once again the question why don't you merge this PR? It seems like that there are more customers who are needing this one, see moby/swarmkit#1242. But there @stevvooe tell us we should start a new discussion. Are you serious? That looks like ping-pong (or passport 38 from Asterix). But OK tell me where I should open up the next issue or what I should do and I will do it because I need this functionality.

[m4r10k]

@thaJeztah moby/swarmkit#1242 now seems to be a dead end (see last post of stevvooe there). Please can anyone help me to get my PR merged? @fcrisciani, @mavenugo now I ask you directly as it seems to be not discussed anywhere else now: Whats the problem with my PR? Could you please merge it if there are no arguments against it left? This functionality would be very helpful, not only for me. Thank you!

[SalikovAlex]

We want this PR!

[mavenugo]

@kleinsasserm apologies on the delayed response. I was under the impression that the response from @fcrisciani (moby/moby#34239 (comment)) was adequate & I failed to pay attention to this thread as well. I have to spend some time to go over all the details to give my comments.

Though the changes are simple and straight forward, we have to dig into the details on why hostname was not considered for the name resolution on the first place. I have to spend some time to check on it.

[m4r10k]

Thank you, that would be very, very helpful. Please check it and let us know. As you can see in the comments, there are different places where the actual behavior is being discussed, but this one here seems to be the last one left. Maybe you have also read through moby/swarmkit#1242 I've also explained it there and in the other linked issues. eg. swarmkit issuecomment-319949075

[m4r10k]

Just to let you all know: I've chatted with @mavenugo on the docker-networking channel on Slack. He is under heavy load at the moment but he will have a look at this PR soon.

[m4r10k]

@mavenugo I can't reach you on Slack too... are you finally lost in work? 😄 Any status update on this one?

[mavenugo]

@kleinsasserm :) thanks for the follow ups. This is certainly in my stack and I will get my investigation going this weekend. Sorry about the delay and thanks for your patience.

[m4r10k]

No problem! The main point is that you are ok 👍

[m4r10k]

@mavenugo one more week has passed 😄 - any news on this?

[m4r10k]

@mavenugo 😁 one new week, did you find a free time slot to have a look? 🙈

[m4r10k]

@mavenugo Maduh?

[mavenugo]

@kleinsasserm apologies on the delay again. I went through all the discussions across the different repos and I understand the requirement. It is indeed very useful if we can identify a task individually without having to call the docker API to get the Task-id and add extra magic.

IMHO, there are few reasons why reusing the hostname for this can be problematic

1. Today there is a bright red-line between the responsibility Docker daemon undertakes for Name resolution versus what the application assumes its own host name is. For example, there are existing clustered applications use its hostname to uniquely identify itself and would need that flexibility regardless of how the platform DNS resolution operates. By extending that red-line beyond the responsibility boundaries, we might end up breaking long-standing assumptions that existing Docker applications have regarding its hostname and operate in the field. As you know these applications and images are well in production and by simply adding an operational feature on top, it might break the applications unexpectedly and hence the responsibility falls under the platform for backward compatibility and its a serious concern.
2. As @thaJeztah pointed out here , unfortunately today the hostname in docker doesn't adhere to the RFC conformance and hence adding them as part of DNS again can be risky as it might break the DNS resolvers with varying assumptions.

As you can see, my concern on this is backward compatibility and existing application assumptions on hostname for its own operation and changing the operational nature of DNS resolution might impact it in unforeseen ways.

But, since we are discussing on a functionality to better identify a task individually, we should consider the --task-alias idea since we are not crossing the bright-red-line of responsibility and we can implement it with confidence of not breaking any assumptions built into existing applications.

Also, am very skeptical of the success of even the --task-alias in cases where the application is not intelligent. For example, DNS caching is a major issue when one come to depend on task IP bound to a static slot. Even if for example swarmkit fixes its slot assignment properly and guarantees the presence of x.1, x.2, x.3 after scale up and scale down to 3 tasks, there is absolutely no guarantee that they will get the same IPs. Infact, 100% of times it will be different once the tasks goes down and comes back up again for any reason. This combined with DNS caching (that happens outside of the control of the application) will cause major headache for the applications though Docker platform cannot take responsibilities for such assumptions. One of the reasons why we implemented the Service VIP from day-1 (after we introduced the service concept) is to avoid the multiple A-Record DNS caching issues .

Having said that, we could implement the --task-alias for cases where it is infact helpful such as smarter applications that can handle the DNS caching issues mentioned above.

Again sorry about the delayed response. But I think this is a much safer approach considering all the legacy that Docker carries atm.

[mtneug]

I recently noticed that there already is an network.aliases option for compose files, which I guess is the equivalent of docker network connect --alias on the CLI side. Maybe it would be sufficient to enable templates for this option similar to service hostnames? Then users could decide the DNS naming format for themselves and it would not break legacy support.

[m4r10k]

Sorry @mavenugo for my late answer, I was busy the last weeks too. Now I have had myself read in again to this and I'am pretty sure that your suggestion to implement something like a template aware --task-alias would be a valid solution to this matter.

The mentioned network aliasing probably won't work, because it would still assign the service an alias but what we need here is a name resolution on a per task basis (identify each container of a service individually) . That said and to argument why I first took the path to change the hostname and register the hostname to the service discovery DNS was, that usually in any case any software in a running container can expect, that there is a $HOSTNAME environment variable available too.

If we go the way with --task-alias which looks good to me to not break the backward compatibility, as a consequence we have to make sure that there is an according environment variable inside the container available, if the option is set. Like $TASK_ALIAS for example. Otherwise this change would not help in the case, if the software (and it probably will) has to know itself, for example to get the correct config folder of a share mount. And furthermore, the task-aliases has to be registered to the service discovery DNS also to reach each other tasks container from another task container buy a predictable name.

Whats is your opinion on this?

[m4r10k]

@mavenugo We wrote a little tool (a service wrapper) which is able to retrieve the needed information directly from the Docker Swarm API via the network inspect and service inspect calls. So I am able to get the information about the containers of an Docker network, especially the ip addresses and of course their corresponding names and service. In conjunction with the already existing hostname templating and the labeling possibilities of the service together with the Golang templating functionality we now have a flexible way dynamically configure and reconfigure nearly every service.

I think you can close this one, as we made a workaround. If someone is interested in, we have released it on Github: https://github.com/n0r1sk/bosnd . It's really far away from being perfect but it works. 😄

Thanks!

[mtneug]

@kleinsasserm I don't think that your workaround is a good one. As you write in the README, the Docker socket is not mounted into the container for security reasons. But providing access to the API via HTTP and for this mounting in the Docker Engine certificate is essentially the same. IMHO giving each container access to Docker's API just to resolve IP addresses is more than undesirable.

[m4r10k]

Yes that is basically true but the host where the bosnd is running doesn't have to be a manager host. Second you can add something like Kong between the bosnd and the manager interface to get some kind of API security. Third, yes it would be nice to have RBAC in the Docker Engine like Casbin provides to allow only GET requests by default (yes I know Docker EE).

Mounting the SSL certificates is always a sub optimal solution but sometimes you have no options (ssl won't work without). Furthermore you cannot expose to a "ipaddress:port:port" combination with Docker Swarm. And you would like to share the Docker host with a lot of external explicit ip's to get your external DNS mappings done (for many services). If this would be working you would be able to use Docker secrets. On the other hand if you use Docker-compose you cannot use external Docker secrets, only secrets created during the Docker compose up are working. And this secrets (file based) are bind mounts from the file system. Sadly, no solution, but what is possible is, that Docker-compose can map "ipaddress:port:port" correctly. And to come to the end, docker run cannot use any secrets at all even it is running on a swarm. Why? There is no combination that works for any of these cases.

Conclusion: You are correct, but real life is not black and white, it is gray. And you need the flexibility to dynamically get the container ip's into the, for example, load balancer configuration of Apache httpd, because only Apache httpd can talk Ajp13 with Apache Tomcats. Without it, you are not able to do MTA. (Modernize Traditional Applications (c)Docker) 😏

[lazedo]

i'm failing to see why this is not merged as it seems to solve a lot of issues with stack deployments for different types of services mentioned above and others like distributed erlang apps (rabbitmq & others).

or..., is there a way to replace this embedded dns with another implementation (batteries included but replaceable) or extended it ?

@m4r10k besides this being accepted here, what else is needed to have it deployed with docker-ce ?

[m4r10k]

@lazedo you did read it correctly, there are no big concerns about it. But there might be problems like @mavenugo said. As I wrote above, personally I can't see any heavy problems with it including garbled hostnames for example, but I am far away from knowing the code good enough to close out side effects. This PR is just straight hacked into it, without fuses.

One discussed problem would be, that during scaling, it is not guaranteed, that new containers are filling up the gaps in the line. For example, you start with three containers, ct-1, ct-2, ct-3 and after some up and down scaling you stay with ct-3, ct-8, ct-10. The gaps must not be filled. This could, if you do not know it, be a problem. If you use this PR for a cluster service, where you won't autoscale voluntary, it might work. But it is still not sure because, if a Docker host die, and Swarm starts up the missing container (replica) on another Swarm node, the old DNS might be still there (eg host-03) and you will end up with host-04 which might not be part of your cluster config (and probably will never be). A timing problem. Therefore, this functionality should be optional and switchable by config.

As for merge: No, there would be nothing more to do than to merge this (or a cleaner code) into the libnetwork and afterwards, the resulting git-hash has to be updated in the vendor list of docker-ce etc. to be recognized in the next build cycle eg 18.01...

I think the greatest problem at the moment is, that all libnetwork people are very busy as I can see on slack. Therefore a ongoing discussion is a little bit hard to establish. Glad for me to see, that there are others out there who are sharing my point of view too.

For replacing dns: No, there is no direct way to replace the internal dns based service discovery. The only way you can go is, that you use something like HashiCorp Consul. But in my personal view, these are things which are hard to setup and to maintain. A build in solution, with the already existing dns service discovery, would be preferable.

For our needs, we wrote a simple configuration tool which is based on the docker network inspect --verbose information to get the information we need. Not perfect, but good enough to get things running. 😄

[philippreston]

👍

[SvenDowideit]

@thaJeztah is there any chance you can bring this issue to a resolution?

I was just needing to be able to get replicated swarm service tasks to talk to each other - if you look around, you'll see too many example compose files hard code the ip addresses for the tasks into the compose files, or worse, create 4 tasks for a service, with identical yaml by adding 4 services...

for example:

• https://github.com/minio/minio/blob/master/docs/orchestration/docker-swarm/docker-compose.yaml
• https://gist.github.com/zicklag/d4a16addb23275152b10144c2f53deed

[olljanat]

FYI. Afaiu my PR moby/moby#39204 (which is already merged) implements same thing. Just on different way. So it will be part of next Docker version.