One container. One image tag. Everything else still undocumented.
The service record for foundry-egress-proxy-research lists a single fact: it runs as a Docker container built from foundry-egress-proxy:0.1. This page states that plainly and marks the gaps instead of filling them with guesses.
See what is recordedWhat the record says
Ships as a single container
The whole service is one Docker container. No sidecar, host agent, or separate install step is recorded for it.
Named for egress
The name is the only description on file. It reads as an egress proxy for Foundry research workloads; the record does not confirm behavior beyond the packaging.
Pinned image tag
Deployments reference foundry-egress-proxy:0.1 by explicit tag, so the build in play is identifiable from the image reference alone.
Early version
The 0.1 tag places the image at its first published version. Treat interfaces, defaults, and naming as unstable until a later tag exists.
No invented detail
Ports, routes, upstreams, credentials, and health checks are not in the record. Where this page is silent, the record is silent too.
Getting it running
Pull the image
Fetch foundry-egress-proxy:0.1. No build step, base image, or registry path is recorded, so use the source your team already uses for Foundry images.
Start the container
Run it under Docker. The record documents no required flags, mounts, environment variables, or resource limits; confirm those with the owning team before rollout.
Route traffic through it
Send the outbound research traffic you intend to proxy at the container. Listening ports and upstream configuration are not documented here.
Verify the running tag
Check the image reference on the running container against 0.1 so you always know which build is serving traffic.
Questions operators ask
Which image should I deploy?
foundry-egress-proxy:0.1. That exact tag is the one fact recorded for this system, so pin it rather than tracking a floating tag.
What ports does it listen on?
Not recorded. The service record covers packaging only. Ask the owning team for listener ports, upstream targets, and any proxy configuration before you put traffic through it.
Is it safe to run in production?
The record does not say. A 0.1 tag and an empty description are the only signals available, and neither implies production readiness. Treat it as research-stage until someone documents otherwise.
Why is this page so short?
Because the source record is short. It lists one fact: the system runs as a Docker container from foundry-egress-proxy:0.1. Everything else would be invention, so it is left out and named as missing.
How do I get the gaps filled in?
Add the missing detail to the service record itself — description, ports, configuration, ownership. This page reflects that record, so it improves when the record does.
About this system
foundry-egress-proxy-research is an internal Norfield system of kind container. One fact is recorded against it: it runs as a Docker container built from the image foundry-egress-proxy:0.1. Its description field is empty, and no ports, dependencies, owners, or runbooks are attached. The name suggests an egress proxy used by Foundry research workloads, which is why this page is written for operators handling outbound traffic. That reading is a name, not a specification. Anything you need beyond the image reference should come from the team that owns the service, not from this page.