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

Multiple exit nodes per service #9

Open
ammmze opened this issue Feb 21, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #105
Open

Multiple exit nodes per service #9

ammmze opened this issue Feb 21, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #105
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@ammmze
Copy link

ammmze commented Feb 21, 2024

This looks like a great project! I'll be exploring this in the next few days. One thing I see missing that I'd like to see supported is having multiple exit nodes per service.

I've got a couple of cheap VPS machines that I have setup under a single CNAME (so basically load balancing at the DNS level) and I'd like to have both of them setup as exit nodes for the same nginx ingress service.

For the manually provisioned nodes, I think this is more/less just a matter of making the exit node name label a comma list of exit nodes, then when processing that label we split the label and iterate over individual values.

We may also need to have some consideration around updating the load balancer ip addresses in the service to ensure they don't override the other.

@korewaChino
Copy link
Member

Honestly I don't even know if Chisel actually lets you run multiple reverse-proxy clients to one server (with different ports ofc).

But if you want a HTTP LB, I recommend just running the reverse proxy on the cluster itself.

I might work on this soon, just hold on a bit :3

@korewaChino korewaChino added the enhancement New feature or request label Jun 4, 2024
@korewaChino korewaChino linked a pull request Jul 9, 2024 that will close this issue
@korewaChino
Copy link
Member

This should hopefully be fixed as of d50d5e0, needs testing

@korewaChino
Copy link
Member

Oops, got confused with #92

@korewaChino korewaChino reopened this Sep 25, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants