Harold Ozouf

@stereohorse Thanks for your interest in Traefik Mesh. You are describing a valid use case which is currently not supported. However, this is possible on Traefik. The v2.3 as been...

@SantoDE Adding more middleware sounds like a good idea but I'm worried about the structure of our annotations. The `AddPrefix` and `StepPrefix` order in which they are applied matters but...

For backward compatibility we could use an annotation like suggested in that proposal: https://github.com/traefik/mesh/issues/756 Something like `mesh.traefik.io/ports.whoami.appProtocol: http`

@kevinpollet I did a test with the `ownerReferences` property. It works great but there's a side effect. We are relying on service deletion events to update state tables but when...

Using `ownerReferences` is not an option for us. Shadow services and user services are in different namespaces. The kubernetes documentation on garbage collection says: > Cross-namespace owner references are disallowed...

I agree with @kevinpollet's proposal. If we improve the shadow-service name, it can be perfectly guessable by the user. It could be something like `{name}-{namespace}-maesh`, so it mimic what we...

The `forwardedHeader` option of an endpoint controls how `X-Forwarded-*` headers will be trusted. If not provided, a recursive request (used for implementing TrafficSplits) won't be able to rely on the...

I see 2 options on how we could go further on this: - Remove the need to rely on `X-Forwarded-*` headers by preventing users to define middlewares on TrafficSplit backends....

@einali Thanks for you interest in Maesh. As Maesh depends on Traefik we can't give you any ETA until this feature gets implemented on their side.

The only reason why `buildConfigRoutersAndServices` returns an error is because it's checking if the traffic-type is something valid. `buildACLConfigRoutersAndServices` is checking that too but we can't interrupt the traffic-target loop...