Add registry proxying section #66
Conversation
dmcgowan
force-pushed
the
mirror-query-param
branch
from
42589cd to
e5df360
Compare
spec.md
Outdated
| @@ -901,6 +902,20 @@ If the image had already been deleted or did not exist, a `404 Not Found` respon | |||
|
|
|||
| > for more details, see: [compatibility.md](https://github.com/docker/distribution/blob/master/docs/spec/manifest-v2-2.md#backward-compatibility) | |||
|
|
|||
| ### Registry Mirroring | |||
|
|
|||
| A registry MAY operate as a mirror for an upstream registry to support pull-through caching or proxying of fetch operations (such as fetching tags, manifest, or blobs). | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
first time for the term fetch operations in this document
Maybe http GET requests/operations instead? If agree need to also change below.. otherwise maybe introduce the term earlier on in the spec?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fine, I'll update to pull. That is more consistent
spec.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| A client SHOULD be aware of whether a registry host being used is a mirror. | ||
| A client SHOULD avoid sending `ns` query parameters to non-mirrored registries. | ||
| A client SHOULD NOT send authorization credentials for an upstream registry to a mirrored registry. |
|
Why do clients need to know anything about pull-through caching if its implemented server-side? |
dmcgowan
force-pushed
the
mirror-query-param
branch
from
e5df360 to
29fdf25
Compare
The clients should know how the registry host was resolved from a given image reference. The clients don't care how the server is implemented, but they SHOULD provide information to the server which indicates what the reference being asked for is. Just as when an HTTP client connects with a PROXY server it must communicate what the upstream server is, the same is true here. Today the protocol doesn't define anyway to communicate what the upstream is and proxies end up be hardcoded to a single upstream. In a few cases you can see proxies use custom domains per upstream and require users to change the name of their images in order to use them. |
Right... isn't that the point? If I encode that "myregistry/mynamespace/myrepo" goes to "upstream/foo/bar", that's a detail for the maintainer of If the goal is to allow the client to specify "upstream/foo/bar", then I'd that the target is not really a repository anymore, but simply a working proxy, and thus, a different protocol parameter might be useful, but registries should therefore have the option to not support said parameter. |
That is one use case that will still work. In the example you mentioned, when a repository is proxied in that fashion, the puller often does know of this detail as they must explicitly provide myregistry with the intent of getting some upstream content. The use case where myregistry is some sort of blessed version of upstream is reasonable, but not the intent of the namespace parameter here.
This is the use case here and proxy may be better terminology here, but that is really a detail of the registry. The registry may act as a proxy, proxy-cache, or active mirror, that is out of scope for definition here. This parameter just enables all of those features to work across multiple namespaces. For example if you want public images from both |
Or configure two repositories, one for each? (especially since combining them could lead to merge conflicts). I'm concerned we're adding quite a bit of complexity to address a use case that has simpler solutions when configured on the registry side. |
Can you elaborate here? Configuring a repository for each mirror is non-trivial. Configuring a domain for each upstream and routing to the upstream based on the domain is not easier, that would still requires the same routing on the server side that an implementation of this would require. The client side implementation to support per-registry configuration is not simple and inherently requires catch -all conditions when trying to enforce proxying through a gateway. I did do a client side implementation of this to demonstrate the feature and allow server side implementations a client to test against. On the client side, it is not complex at all since clients should already know how to handle 404s when multiple registry endpoints are configured. On the server side, the complexity to support this isn't much more than existing proxy-cache support. |
Its non-trivial, but its not that difficult either :) My concern remains around complexity: the document as outlined, for example, says that the If we feel that pass-through proxying of other registries is, in and of itself, a feature of the protocol (rather than something configured on the registry side), then I suspect we need to give significantly more thought to the end-to-end user experience. For example, I could imagine some paths supporting proxying and others not. |
The clients have the most context and really does not need to be defined here, only that a client SHOULD make that distinction to avoid sending unnecessary redundant information. The clients themselves have both the configuration and endpoint resolution logic, so it has multiple options for determining this. In the implementation I sent I just simply did this by checking whether the endpoint was configured without push support, as this could indicate the registry being communicated with may not be the upstream source. However, I will probably add a check there for
No, the registry can simply ignore it. This is like asking a registry today which was configured to mirror docker.io to return an error if the client actually meant quay.io, the registry just isn't expected to have the same amount of context as a client in regards to the intent of the entire pull process. If the registry chooses to be handle the
They aren't expected to check for it, but rather be explicitly configured for it. A client will know if it is configured to always use a specific mirror or a mirror for multiple namespaces. I think what you are suggesting here though is the idea of registry discovery. That is a much larger topic that I would still love to see happen, in that feature a client could start with zero knowledge (except of course the domain quay.io, docker.io, etc) and discover registry capabilities and endpoints. |
|
discussion ensues on the call today. |
|
pinging @thomasmckay and @kurtismullins who are implementing mirroring on Quay -- they probably have feedback and want to track this thread |
|
is `ns` already used, so best to continue with that mnemonic? or could
it be something to not collide with the outdated concept that images
would on be named "transport/namespace/name:tag"?
|
|
@vbatts I use |
|
@dmcgowan one thing i'm unclear on here is: can i have a single registry mirror that will be usable for more than one remote registry (i.e. remote of |
|
Notes from today's call:
Please lets find a way to classify this language (whether client or server side). So we can close out or merge this |
|
Reiterating our convo from the meeting: I actually see a lot of value in adding this query parameter, but removing any connotation that it is the blessed solution for repository mirroring. I think that by including this value, a proxy could implement lots of different behavior for the client that need not be directly related to repository mirroring. |
|
I note that harbor uses the term "replication" rather than proxy-cache or mirroring, which I quite like https://goharbor.io/docs/1.10/administration/configuring-replication/ |
dmcgowan
force-pushed
the
mirror-query-param
branch
2 times, most recently
from
658a97c to
1e3a9a4
Compare
|
big time rebase needed @dmcgowan |
| | `Host` | header | Standard HTTP Host Header. SHOULD be set to the registry host. | | ||
| | `Authorization` | header | An RFC7235 compliant authorization header. | | ||
| | `name` | path | Name of the target repository. | | ||
| | Name | Kind | Description | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we lost these tables in the spec.md rewrite
| An example of delegating functionality is proxying pull operations to another registry. | ||
| An example of adding functionality is implementing a pull-through cache of pulls to another registry. | ||
| When operating as a proxy, the `Host` header passed to the registry will be the host of the PROXY and NOT the host in the repository name used by the client. | ||
| A `ns` query parameter on pull operations is OPTIONAL, but when used specifies the host in a repository name used by a client. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is the key piece - we should document at least this query param
|
Pushing this out to 1.2 while we figure out how to properly word this |
|
Hi team, just checking to see when this is likely to be merged in? Thanks |
|
@dcarrion87 it's going to be a while. Effort is still continuing on the 1.1 release. After that, we'll revisit this. |
|
I don't mind rebasing this after 1.1 to target 1.2. It really is a pretty light change, it has been included by |
| | `Range` | header | HTTP Range header specifying blob chunk. | | ||
| | `name` | path | Name of the target repository. | | ||
| | `digest` | path | Digest of desired blob. | | ||
| | `ns` | query | (OPTIONAL) Namespace of repository. SHOULD be set to source host. | | ||
|
|
||
| ###### On Success: Partial Content | ||
|
|
|
I just wanted to check in if this proposed change has just stalled or is abandoned? I know that these things take a long time, so it can at times be hard to tell. I have been working in depth with mirroring OCI artifacts over the last year now. The addition of an I just wanted to add my input that I think that adding this to the spec would be very useful and could potentially help pain points that exist today when mirroring. If there is any additional work required before merging this, I would be happy to help. |
|
I've been watching this as well, and would like to voice my support for getting this officially included in the spec. |
|
+1 |
|
Operating https://registry.k8s.io we see a TON of requests that are obviously from pull-through caches/mirrors like artifactory for images that we don't host. If this API was standardized we could eventually start requesting that these tools switch to ns-aware pulls and stop spamming us with requests for images we don't provide. While not the top of our concerns, this feels wasteful and generates a lot of log noise, and isn't free. The current state where pull-through mirroring pretty much has to request all upstreams feels bad, what concerns remain with this proposal? |
I'd guess this is from users thinking they have setup a proxy, and docker automatically falling back when the proxy pull fails. This is made worse by docker only supporting a proxy to Docker Hub. The result is the proxy does nothing, never used to pull k8s images (since the client would pull directly) and never finding a match (since the proxy isn't pointing to Hub) for the Hub pulls.
Are there proxies doing this today? The few I've used are configured for a single upstream registry, at least for a given namespace or port. I worry we'll all agree this is a good change, but the key players in the space won't implement it. It would be good to see this being actively used by both clients and proxies. We also need to consider existing clients and proxies in various combinations. E.g. if a proxy for a single registry is working with older clients and gets upgraded to use the headers, those older clients still need to go to the original registry. Similarly, newer clients configured with an older proxy should not pull content from the wrong upstream registry, since that would expose them to attacks by dependency confusion and namespace squatters. |
The issue where docker only supports configuring a mirror for dockerhub is also pretty unfortunate but not what I'm referring to, the headers are for agents like artifactory (and other similar tools). My understanding is that users setup a central catch-all pull-through cache and have no way to disambiguate which upstream the pulls were meant for, so we get pulls for ... a lot of images clearly not associated with us. This seems to be common with self hosted options, versus something like ECR/AR remote repositories. It's understandable that adding a distinct IP / hostname for every proxied host is heavy handed, and I don't think most users even think to use a port other than 5000.
AFAICT, yes, for example: https://jfrog.com/help/r/jfrog-artifactory-documentation/virtual-docker-repositories "This allows you to access images that are hosted locally on local Docker repositories, as well as remote images that are proxied by remote Docker repositories, and access all of them from a single URL defined for the virtual repository. Using virtual repositories can be very useful since users will continue to work with the virtual repository while the admin can manage the included repositories, replace the default deployment target and those changes will be transparent to the users. [...]"
This seems a bit circular? If we don't document the spec for this optional feature then most projects are not going to enable support (e.g. distribution/distribution#3864 (comment))
That's true, but a proxy can behave more intelligently when the namespace parameter is present and over time more clients will have it, there are various references to waiting for this to be standard. The proxies can fall back to existing behavior such as querying all upstreams when the header is missing. Containerd alone represents a lot of clients that already have this header in place. Were it to become standard and proxies begin supporting it there's actually a pretty large client base sending it already, but there's resistance to supporting it more widely referring back to waiting for this PR. |
I'm not sure how you'd differentiate the scenarios from the k8s registry. It would just look like a bunch of failed image pulls to that registry with either scenario.
Ugh, someone should open a dependency confusion CVE against them if that's really what's happening.
We've always standardized things that were already implemented somewhere to show the feasibility first. You can't untag a standard, and implementations are effectively the CI for a standard. If the distribution project doesn't want to add it, or maintain a feature branch, then we'd need another project.
Registries falling back when the header isn't seen is probably easy enough. That needs to be to a single registry to avoid a dependency confusion attack. The fallback for new clients talking to older registries is less clear. The API needs to ensure new clients either know to fallback when talking to older proxies, or that the API doesn't exist on old proxies to avoid the security risk of sending requests to the wrong upstream registry.
With Docker updating that integration, the single proxy setting to Hub will hopefully stop being an issue in the future. |
|
If you need an example of the The other solution that I have seen used out in the wild is to add a header to the mirror configuration so that the receiving registry is aware of the original registry the image originates from. This is how Drangonfly solves the problem for example. Which means that they would not be able to support wild card mirror configuration. https://d7y.io/docs/next/operations/integrations/container-runtime/containerd/#multiple-registries Right now every registry out there seems to come up with their own standard for how to deal with mirroring multiple namespaces. A common practices is to to join the original image name reference with the mirror registry. For example |
|
Can this be used more generically? Not just for image pulls from a proxy, but also for tag listings, referrers, possibly even a push-through proxy? Is there a way users can directly reference content on a proxy with a namespace parameter, e.g. an added field in the image reference like |
Define repository namespace query parameter for proxying.
Closes #12
Giving time for registry operators to weigh in
Maintainer approval