How should a multi-website key map be designed?
List each production site, nonproduction environment, expected monthly volume, browser origin, and operational owner before creating credentials. Give each important trust boundary a descriptive key. Starter commonly separates production from staging or a second site; Pro can divide up to 10 active keys among client sites, products, workers, or environments. Do not encode the secret in the key name or reuse one browser key across unrelated customers.
How should capacity be allocated?
Estimate normal and peak traffic for every website, then leave shared account headroom for critical services. On Pro, create lower caps for staging, secondary sites, or bounded client workloads. A key that reaches its cap receives HTTP 429 while other keys can continue only while shared capacity remains. Caps contain consumption; they do not reserve requests or create separate billing pools.
How should browser origins be configured?
Enter each exact scheme, hostname, and port that should make direct browser requests. Preview domains and localhost ports require their own entries. IPRout does not count a lookup rejected by its origin check against usage, but the key remains visible to browser users. Prefer a server-side integration for confidential credentials and use origin restrictions as an additional browser boundary.
How is one site changed without disrupting the others?
Create a replacement key with the new immutable origins and cap, deploy it to the selected website, test from its real environment, and confirm activity in GET /usage. Revoke the previous key only after the replacement works. Because every other website has its own credential, their deployments do not need to change during this rotation or retirement.
How should a multi-website key architecture be implemented?
Inventory each website, environment, expected volume, browser origin, and owner, then allocate separate named credentials where plan slots permit. Reserve Pro caps for containing bounded workloads. Keep this responsibility close to the IPRout client so the behavior documented in Multi-Website API Key Management remains consistent across web requests, workers, and scheduled jobs.
How should a multi-website key architecture be verified?
Exercise every site with its assigned key and exact production Origin, then confirm /usage attribution. Prove that revoking a test site's credential does not interrupt another site. Automate the stable cases and reserve live checks for controlled environments so verification is repeatable without consuming unnecessary production allowance.
How should a multi-website key architecture be operated?
Review aggregate capacity and per-site consumption together. Pro team roles can distribute management without sharing one login, while ownership records keep operational responsibility clear. Write down the owner and expected behavior so an alert or product change can be handled without reconstructing the original integration decisions.
Where does a multi-website key architecture stop?
Isolation covers credentials, rotation, attribution, origins, and optional caps; it does not create separate account quotas. A shared allowance can still be exhausted by combined traffic. Treat that limit as part of the feature contract and direct callers to the related guide when they need a different guarantee or control.
What belongs in the release review for a multi-website key architecture?
Review the deployed implementation of Multi-Website API Key Management, not only a local sample. Confirm the intended endpoint, credential source, timeout, response model, and fallback from the environment that will carry real traffic. Use the verification cases above as release evidence, inspect generated browser assets and logs for secret exposure, and make sure dashboards identify the workload without storing raw credentials or unnecessary IP data. Record the configuration owner and rollback action before enabling the feature broadly.
When should a multi-website key architecture be revisited?
Revisit a multi-website key architecture when traffic volume, plan capacity, application ownership, deployment regions, browser origins, data retention, or the product consequence of a lookup changes. Compare the current implementation with the documented operating boundary rather than assuming the original decision still fits. Update tests and internal runbooks together, then verify the public API contract and related IPRout guides before rolling the change across every service that shares the client or account.
External references
Continue with the standards and official documentation most relevant to this guide.