You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
For my RabbitMQ architecture, several clusters are managed with the same secrets. For this type of setup, Vault cannot be used to manage secrets across multiple RabbitMQ hosts/clusters.
It would be great if the RabbitMQ backend could be enhanced to allow the configuration of multiple connection URIs (comma separated?) and then Vault will manage the same secrets and leases across all of the supplied hosts.
With my architecture, eventual consistency of RabbitMQ secrets is acceptable.
Is this kind of enhancement feasible? I would be happy to contribute the changes but I understand there would be some concurrency and availability considerations.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
These clusters are deployed in the cloud - cross region and cross AZ (1 cluster per AZ, nodes are not clustered across AZs). RabbitMQ producers connect to any of these clusters [randomly] through a load balancer. The producer is unaware of which cluster it connects to so all clusters are configured with the same secrets so that producers can connect through the LB using the correct Rabbit credentials.
This deployment strategy is designed for resiliency/availability and there is no cluster-specific state. I hope this makes sense. I am open to hearing thoughts on this or any other approach.
Currently, only one connection URI is configured for the RabbitMQ backend: https://www.vaultproject.io/docs/secrets/rabbitmq/#quick-start
For my RabbitMQ architecture, several clusters are managed with the same secrets. For this type of setup, Vault cannot be used to manage secrets across multiple RabbitMQ hosts/clusters.
It would be great if the RabbitMQ backend could be enhanced to allow the configuration of multiple connection URIs (comma separated?) and then Vault will manage the same secrets and leases across all of the supplied hosts.
With my architecture, eventual consistency of RabbitMQ secrets is acceptable.
Is this kind of enhancement feasible? I would be happy to contribute the changes but I understand there would be some concurrency and availability considerations.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: