Skip to content

Provisional ProxySettingsPolicy proposal #4237

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Provisional ProxySettingsPolicy proposal #4237

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
20 changes: 20 additions & 0 deletions docs/proposals/proxy-settings.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@

# Enhancement Proposal-4067: Proxy Settings Policy

- Issue: https://github.com/nginx/nginx-gateway-fabric/issues/4067
- Status: Provisional

## Summary

This Enhancement Proposal introduces the `ProxySettingsPolicy` API that allows Cluster Operators and Application Developers to configure NGINX's proxy buffering and connection settings between the NGINX Gateway Fabric dataplane and upstream applications.

## Goals

- Define proxy settings for buffering configuration.
- Define an API for proxy settings that is extensible to support additional proxy directives in the future.
- Outline the attachment points (Gateway and HTTPRoute/GRPCRoute) for the proxy settings policy.
- Describe the inheritance behavior of proxy settings when multiple policies exist at different levels.
Comment on lines +11 to +16
Copy link
Contributor

@shaun-nx shaun-nx Nov 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Since the initial design and implementation is explicitly supporting proxy_buffer_size, proxy_buffers, proxy_buffering and proxy_busy_buffers_size, should we call that out in the goals?

I see the non-goals says "only buffering directives are in scope for initial implementation", which might cover the same point. I can see that being a point of confusion in the design review.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@ciarams87 ciarams87 Nov 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have in the first goal - Define proxy settings for buffering configuration. The specific directives feel like implementation details to me.


## Non-Goals

- Define the complete set of all proxy directives (only buffering directives are in scope for initial implementation).
Copy link
Contributor

@salonichf5 salonichf5 Nov 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I saw these directives don't get applied to stream blocks, so support for this will only be for GRPC and HTTRoutes right?
We should add info in non-goal about this

Loading