chore: add protobuf types for tailnet telemetry #13617
Conversation
|
This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking. |
8ebc909 to
82a7c4c
Compare
82a7c4c to
48009a2
Compare
tailnet/proto/tailnet.proto
Outdated
| google.protobuf.BoolValue CaptivePortal = 19; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| message TelemetryRequest { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the RFC, this was a list of Events, which I liked. It allows us to post multiple events in one RPC call, and gives us flexibility to add non-event-based telemetry in future
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I was kinda debating back and forth with this when porting it to protobuf. I felt that since this is over DRPC anyways, the overhead of calling multiple times is more negligable than if this were an HTTP API like I originially thought. You're right though that the array is more flexible. I'll switch it back to that.
tailnet/proto/tailnet.proto
Outdated
| string home_derp = 11; | ||
| Measurements measurements = 12; | ||
| repeated string logs = 13; | ||
| DERPMap derp_map = 14; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we may also need to redact hostnames and region names from the derp map. Maybe only if they're not Tailscale public DERPs or Google public STUNs, as it would be nice to know how often users are running their own DERP servers vs. using embedded and public DERPs/STUNS.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah that's a good idea. Do you think it'd be better if we create our own telemetry specific derp map here? Or is it just fine to obfuscate in place.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's fine to obfuscate in place
No description provided.