标签：#gateway

The status of the controller As of March 2026, the Kubernetes SIG Network stopped maintaining ingress-nginx. That is the controller a lot of clusters have been running for years. A CNCF blog post published July 9 walks operators through the state of play. The headline for anyone still on it is short: unpatched CVEs, and no more feature work. The post names two operational risks explicitly. New security issues will not receive upstream fixes. Feature updates and community support have stopped. If your ingress plane is a piece of infrastructure you have not touched in a while, this is the reason to pull it up in this quarter's planning doc. What it means at 3am An ingress controller sits between the internet and your services. When it drops a request, you find out from your users. When it takes a CVE and no one is patching, you find out from a scanner or from a report. Neither is a good discovery path. The controller also carries the exact set of annotations, TLS defaults and rewrite rules your workloads rely on. Nothing about a retirement changes the version you have in production today, so the immediate blast radius is zero. The risk is on the calendar, not on the pager. That is the kind of risk teams reliably defer until a scanner flags an unpatched CVE. The two paths CNCF lays out The post frames the choice as a fork. Path A is a lateral swap to another Ingress controller. The example named is Contour, described in the post as Envoy-based. This keeps you on the Ingress API and mostly moves the problem of who is patching. Path B is modernization to the Gateway API, described in the post as the upstream-backed successor to Ingress. The CNCF post points at ingress2gateway to automate the translation, and recommends an incremental rollout: run the new plane in parallel and move non-critical workloads first. The stopgap version is a mix. Adopt Contour to buy time on maintained code, then schedule the Gateway API move on your own calendar rather than under duress. What

This article is part of the Comprehensive Guide to Microservices Architecture in .NET Core, Cloud and Azure series. API gateways serve as the entry point for client applications in distributed architectures, handling request routing, composition, and protocol translation. As systems grow more complex with multiple client types and backend services, choosing the right gateway pattern becomes crucial for maintaining performance, scalability, and developer productivity. This article explores two powerful API gateway patterns in .NET: the Backend for Frontend (BFF) pattern, which creates client-specific gateways, and GraphQL, which offers flexible, query-driven data fetching. Both patterns address the challenge of efficiently serving diverse clients while maintaining clean architecture and optimal performance. Backend for Frontend (BFF) Pattern Web BFF Implementation The web BFF returns detailed, enriched data suitable for desktop browsers with higher bandwidth and processing power: [ ApiController ] [ Route ( "api/web/[controller]" )] public class OrdersController : ControllerBase { private readonly IOrderServiceClient _orderClient ; private readonly ICustomerServiceClient _customerClient ; private readonly IInventoryServiceClient _inventoryClient ; [ HttpGet ( "{id}" )] public async Task < WebOrderDto > GetOrder ( Guid id ) { // Execute parallel calls to improve response time var orderTask = _orderClient . GetOrderAsync ( id ); var customerTask = _customerClient . GetCustomerAsync ( id ); var inventoryTask = _inventoryClient . GetInventoryStatusAsync ( id ); await Task . WhenAll ( orderTask , customerTask , inventoryTask ); return new WebOrderDto { Order = orderTask . Result , Customer = customerTask . Result , InventoryStatus = inventoryTask . Result , // Include additional rich data for enhanced web UI experience RecommendedProducts = await GetRecommendationsAsync ( id ) }; } } Mobile BFF Implementation The mobile BFF provides optimized, lightweight responses to min

"We are reassigning most affected employees across existing opportunities and programs."

There is common point of confusion. what's the different between REST API vs. HTTP API in AWS and what's the different between them and a traditional Rest API you write with e.g express in node in the broader software world, a "REST API" is just an architectural pattern built on top of HTTP requests. The confusion comes entirely from AWS-specific marketing terminology . When you are inside the AWS ecosystem, Amazon API Gateway is a specific managed service, and AWS chose to split that service into two different flavors (or software products): one called "REST API" and one called "HTTP API." Here is exactly how they work under the hood, how they differ internally, and how it compares to traditional servers. 1. How It Works: REST API vs. HTTP API (AWS Architecture) Think of Amazon API Gateway as a reverse proxy or a "front door" that sits in front of your Lambda functions. AWS REST API (The Heavyweight) When a request hits an AWS REST API, AWS passes that request through a massive feature pipeline before it ever touches your Lambda code. [Client Request] ──> [Authentication (Cognito/IAM)] ──> [Request Validation] ──> [Data Transformation (VTL)] ──> [Your Lambda] What happens: AWS decrypts the request, validates the JSON schema, checks API keys, runs any custom request transformations using a complex mapping language called VTL, and then invokes your Lambda function. Why it costs more: You are paying AWS for all that computing power happening inside the API Gateway layer itself. AWS HTTP API (The Express Lane) When a request hits an AWS HTTP API, AWS strips out almost the entire middle pipeline. [Client Request] ──> [JWT/OAuth2 Authorization Only] ──> [Your Lambda] What happens: The HTTP API acts as a lightning-fast router. It optionally checks a standard JWT token, converts the incoming HTTP request directly into a clean JSON object, and throws it straight into your Lambda function. Why it costs less: Because AWS is doing almost zero processing or data manipulation. Y

Every backend project I've worked on eventually hits the same wall. You start clean — one service, simple routes, everything works. Then slowly the requirements creep in. "We need rate limiting." "Can we add auth middleware?" "What happens when the user service goes down — does it take everything else with it?" You either bolt these things onto every service individually, copy-paste the same middleware across projects, or pay for a managed gateway like Kong or AWS API Gateway and hope it does what you need. I wanted to actually understand how these things work under the hood. So I'm building one — and this is what I've learned so far. What is Ferrox? Ferrox is a self-hosted, programmable API gateway written entirely in Rust. It sits in front of your backend services and handles everything a production system needs in one place: Dynamic routing — point any path prefix to any upstream service Authentication — JWT and API key validation on protected routes Rate limiting — Redis-backed per-IP and per-API-key limiting Circuit breaking — stops hammering a dead upstream service Response caching — Redis-backed TTL cache per route Real-time observability — WebSocket dashboard with live request stats Prometheus metrics — plug straight into Grafana The idea is simple. Instead of this: Client → Service A (has its own auth, rate limiting, logging) Client → Service B (has its own auth, rate limiting, logging) Client → Service C (has its own auth, rate limiting, logging) You get this: Client | v FERROX (auth, rate limiting, circuit breaking, logging — once) | +--------+--------+ | | | Svc A Svc B Svc C (clean) (clean) (clean) Your services stay clean. Ferrox handles the cross-cutting concerns. Why Rust? Honest answer — I already knew Rust from my backend work. But for a gateway specifically, it felt like the obvious choice. A gateway sits on the critical path of every single request. Every millisecond of latency it adds is latency your users feel. You need predictable performance

Azure API Management shipped a Unified Model API that lets clients speak one format while APIM transforms requests to Anthropic, Vertex AI, and other backends. Content safety policies now cover MCP tool calls and Agent-to-Agent payloads alongside LLM traffic. Token metrics expanded to track reasoning, cached, and audio tokens across providers. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

A security researcher found that adding a trailing slash to AWS HTTP API paths bypassed Lambda authorizer authentication entirely, enabling unauthenticated wire transfers at a fintech. The root cause is a path normalization mismatch between HTTP API's greedy route matching and its authorization layer. The same vulnerability class appeared in gRPC-Go via CVE-2026-33186. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

This is a complete guide with steps by step process to deploy the gRPC and how to use Azure API Management to import the gRPC API. It cover step‑by‑step guide to deploying a gRPC API on Azure API Management (APIM), grounded in the Microsoft documentation and a real-world deployment workflow. NOTE: This post is published already in GITHUB here. https://github.com/shailugit/apimGrpc/blob/main/README.md The API Management can expose gRPC services, but with important constraints: APIM supports gRPC by importing a .proto file and forwarding calls to a gRPC backend. gRPC requires HTTP/2 end‑to‑end. gRPC APIs are supported in Self-hosted gateway and not supported in APIM v2 tiers. You can't use the test console to test gRPC The major steps claissfied in two major steps Creating a gRPC server Calling the gPRC application using APIM 1. Creating gRPC Application Typical backend deployment steps include the following Create a .NET gRPC server application Create a .NET gRPC client application Test the setup locally Publish the .NET gRPC server to Azure WebApp and verify the service works directly over HTTPS Step-1 As a first step we will be building a .NET gRPC server application. You can skip this step in case you already have gRPC server application. If you would like to view .NET Core sample used for this sample project, please visit here . Step-2 As a second step we will be building a .NET gRPC client application. You can skip this step in case you already have gRPC client. If you would like to view .NET Core client used for this sample project, please visit the below here . Step-3 Once your client and server code is ready here are the steps to Test your application locally Step-4 Deploy the server to Azure WebApp To understand how-to deploy a .NET 6 gRPC app on App Service, please visit here . Please make sure to enable HTTP version, Enable HTTP 2.0 Proxy and add HTTP20_ONLY_PORT application setting as gRPC only work using http2.0 as shown below 2. Calling gRPC from APIM T

A lot of AI apps die in the same place. Not during the prototype phase. Not while testing...