Kong vs Kuma: What are the differences?
Introduction:
Kong and Kuma, both being service mesh technologies, offer various functionalities and features. While Kong is an API gateway, Kuma is a universal control plane for service meshes. Let's explore the key differences between Kong and Kuma.
-
Deployment and Scalability: Kong is primarily designed as an API gateway and can be deployed as a standalone service, making it easier to scale horizontally. On the other hand, Kuma acts as a control plane for various service meshes and is typically deployed as a Kubernetes controller, enabling seamless scaling of services within a cluster.
-
Multi-Mesh Support: Kuma provides built-in multi-mesh support, allowing the management of multiple service meshes across different clusters or environments. This feature enables greater flexibility and scalability when dealing with complex distributed architectures. Kong, on the other hand, primarily focuses on managing one API gateway.
-
Mesh Connectivity: Kuma is designed to provide seamless connectivity and communication between services within and across meshes, regardless of the underlying infrastructure or location. It achieves this through the implementation of transparent service-to-service communication. Kong, on the other hand, primarily focuses on handling external API traffic, rather than internal service communication.
-
Traffic Routing: Kong offers advanced traffic routing capabilities, allowing users to define and control complex request routing rules based on various factors such as path, headers, and protocols. Conversely, Kuma primarily focuses on traffic routing within the service mesh, ensuring secure and reliable communication between services without in-depth external traffic routing functionalities.
-
Service Discovery: Kuma simplifies service discovery by providing automatic service registration and resolution capabilities within the mesh. It dynamically discovers and maintains the list of available services and their locations. Kong, while offering service discovery, primarily emphasizes on providing centralized API management and authentication.
-
Protocol Support: Kong supports a wide range of protocols, including HTTP, gRPC, WebSockets, and more. This enables it to act as a gateway for various types of APIs and services. Kuma, on the other hand, primarily focuses on supporting only HTTP and gRPC protocols, as it is specialized in managing service-to-service communication in a mesh environment.
In summary, while Kong focuses on being an API gateway with advanced traffic routing and management capabilities, Kuma acts as a universal control plane, providing enhanced service mesh functionalities like multi-mesh support, seamless connectivity, and service discovery across different clusters or environments.
