envoy

Pros of Istio

• Provides a complete service mesh solution with advanced traffic management, security, and observability features
• Offers a higher-level abstraction for managing microservices, simplifying complex deployments
• Includes built-in support for multi-cluster and multi-cloud environments

Cons of Istio

• Higher complexity and steeper learning curve compared to Envoy
• Requires more resources and can introduce additional overhead
• May be overkill for smaller or less complex applications

Code Comparison

Envoy configuration example:

static_resources:
  listeners:
  - address:
      socket_address:
        address: 0.0.0.0
        port_value: 8080

Istio configuration example:

apiVersion: networking.istio.io/v1alpha3
kind: VirtualService
metadata:
  name: my-service
spec:
  hosts:
  - my-service

Envoy focuses on low-level proxy configuration, while Istio provides higher-level abstractions for service mesh management. Istio uses Envoy as its data plane proxy but adds control plane functionality and additional features on top of it. Envoy is more lightweight and flexible, suitable for various use cases, while Istio is specifically designed for complex microservices architectures in Kubernetes environments.

Pros of Traefik

• Easier to configure and use, especially for beginners
• Built-in automatic HTTPS with Let's Encrypt integration
• Dynamic configuration updates without restarts

Cons of Traefik

• Less performant than Envoy for high-traffic scenarios
• More limited in terms of advanced traffic management features
• Smaller ecosystem and community compared to Envoy

Code Comparison

Traefik configuration (YAML):

http:
  routers:
    my-router:
      rule: "Host(`example.com`)"
      service: my-service
  services:
    my-service:
      loadBalancer:
        servers:
          - url: "http://backend1:8080"
          - url: "http://backend2:8080"

Envoy configuration (YAML):

static_resources:
  listeners:
  - address:
      socket_address:
        address: 0.0.0.0
        port_value: 80
    filter_chains:
    - filters:
      - name: envoy.filters.network.http_connection_manager
        typed_config:
          "@type": type.googleapis.com/envoy.extensions.filters.network.http_connection_manager.v3.HttpConnectionManager
          codec_type: auto
          stat_prefix: ingress_http
          route_config:
            name: local_route
            virtual_hosts:
            - name: backend
              domains:
              - "*"
              routes:
              - match:
                  prefix: "/"
                route:
                  cluster: backend_service
  clusters:
  - name: backend_service
    connect_timeout: 0.25s
    type: strict_dns
    lb_policy: round_robin
    load_assignment:
      cluster_name: backend_service
      endpoints:
      - lb_endpoints:
        - endpoint:
            address:
              socket_address:
                address: backend1
                port_value: 8080
        - endpoint:
            address:
              socket_address:
                address: backend2
                port_value: 8080

Pros of Nginx

• Lightweight and efficient, consuming less memory and resources
• Excellent static content serving and caching capabilities
• Simpler configuration for basic use cases

Cons of Nginx

• Less feature-rich for complex service mesh scenarios
• Limited built-in observability and tracing capabilities
• Not designed primarily for dynamic request handling and routing

Code Comparison

Nginx configuration example:

http {
    server {
        listen 80;
        location / {
            proxy_pass http://backend;
        }
    }
}

Envoy configuration example:

static_resources:
  listeners:
  - address:
      socket_address:
        address: 0.0.0.0
        port_value: 80
    filter_chains:
    - filters:
      - name: envoy.filters.network.http_connection_manager
        typed_config:
          "@type": type.googleapis.com/envoy.extensions.filters.network.http_connection_manager.v3.HttpConnectionManager
          codec_type: auto
          stat_prefix: ingress_http
          route_config:
            name: local_route
            virtual_hosts:
            - name: backend
              domains:
              - "*"
              routes:
              - match:
                  prefix: "/"
                route:
                  cluster: backend_service

This comparison highlights the simplicity of Nginx configuration for basic proxying tasks, while showcasing Envoy's more detailed and flexible configuration options for advanced service mesh scenarios.

Pros of HAProxy

• Mature and battle-tested, with a long history of production use
• Excellent performance for Layer 4 (TCP) load balancing
• Simpler configuration and lower resource usage for basic scenarios

Cons of HAProxy

• Limited extensibility compared to Envoy's filter chain model
• Less robust support for modern protocols like gRPC and HTTP/3
• Fewer advanced traffic management features out-of-the-box

Code Comparison

HAProxy configuration example:

frontend http
    bind *:80
    default_backend web_servers

backend web_servers
    balance roundrobin
    server server1 192.168.1.10:80 check
    server server2 192.168.1.11:80 check

Envoy configuration example:

static_resources:
  listeners:
  - address:
      socket_address:
        address: 0.0.0.0
        port_value: 80
    filter_chains:
    - filters:
      - name: envoy.filters.network.http_connection_manager
        typed_config:
          "@type": type.googleapis.com/envoy.extensions.filters.network.http_connection_manager.v3.HttpConnectionManager
          codec_type: auto
          stat_prefix: ingress_http
          route_config:
            name: local_route
            virtual_hosts:
            - name: backend
              domains:
              - "*"
              routes:
              - match:
                  prefix: "/"
                route:
                  cluster: web_servers
  clusters:
  - name: web_servers
    connect_timeout: 0.25s
    type: strict_dns
    lb_policy: round_robin
    load_assignment:
      cluster_name: web_servers
      endpoints:
      - lb_endpoints:
        - endpoint:
            address:
              socket_address:
                address: 192.168.1.10
                port_value: 80
        - endpoint:
            address:
              socket_address:
                address: 192.168.1.11
                port_value: 80

Pros of Kong

• More extensive plugin ecosystem with 100+ plugins available
• Easier setup and configuration for basic use cases
• Better suited for API management and gateway functionalities

Cons of Kong

• Less performant than Envoy for high-throughput scenarios
• More limited in terms of protocol support and advanced traffic management features
• Less flexible for complex service mesh architectures

Code Comparison

Kong configuration example:

http {
  upstream backend {
    server backend1.example.com;
    server backend2.example.com;
  }
  server {
    listen 80;
    location / {
      proxy_pass http://backend;
    }
  }
}

Envoy configuration example:

static_resources:
  listeners:
  - address:
      socket_address:
        address: 0.0.0.0
        port_value: 80
    filter_chains:
    - filters:
      - name: envoy.filters.network.http_connection_manager
        typed_config:
          "@type": type.googleapis.com/envoy.extensions.filters.network.http_connection_manager.v3.HttpConnectionManager
          codec_type: auto
          stat_prefix: ingress_http
          route_config:
            name: local_route
            virtual_hosts:
            - name: backend
              domains:
              - "*"
              routes:
              - match:
                  prefix: "/"
                route:
                  cluster: backend_service
  clusters:
  - name: backend_service
    connect_timeout: 0.25s
    type: strict_dns
    lb_policy: round_robin
    load_assignment:
      cluster_name: backend_service
      endpoints:
      - lb_endpoints:
        - endpoint:
            address:
              socket_address:
                address: backend1.example.com
                port_value: 80
        - endpoint:
            address:
              socket_address:
                address: backend2.example.com
                port_value: 80

Pros of Linkerd2

• Simpler to install and use, with a focus on ease of adoption
• Lightweight and optimized for Kubernetes environments
• Automatic mTLS encryption and identity-based security

Cons of Linkerd2

• Less feature-rich compared to Envoy's extensive capabilities
• Limited to Kubernetes environments, while Envoy is more versatile
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Envoy

Code Comparison

Linkerd2 (Rust):

pub fn new_inbound(
    config: Config,
    local_identity: tls::Conditional<identity::Local>,
) -> impl svc::NewService<
    Target,
    Service = impl tower::Service<
        http::Request<Body>,
        Response = http::Response<Body>,
        Error = Error,
        Future = impl Send,
    > + Clone
    + Send,
> + Clone {
    // ...
}

Envoy (C++):

void Filter::onData(Buffer::Instance& data, bool end_stream) {
  conn_log_trace("processing {} bytes", read_callbacks_->connection(), data.length());
  upstream_request_->encodeData(data, end_stream);
}

The code snippets showcase different language choices and architectural approaches between the two projects.