New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Make Kubernetes aware of the LoadBalancer behaviour #119937
Conversation
Please note that we're already in Test Freeze for the Fast forwards are scheduled to happen every 6 hours, whereas the most recent run was: Mon Aug 14 10:38:09 UTC 2023. |
A copy of #118895, since it was reverted by #119876 for release resons. /milestone v1.29 |
@RyanAoh: You must be a member of the kubernetes/milestone-maintainers GitHub team to set the milestone. If you believe you should be able to issue the /milestone command, please contact your Milestone Maintainers Team and have them propose you as an additional delegate for this responsibility. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
cc @thockin |
Changelog suggestion: Added a new `ipMode` field to the `.status` of Services where `type` is set to `LoadBalancer`.
The new field is behind the `LoadBalancerIPMode` feature gate. |
/cc @aojea @danwinship /triage accepted |
/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gci-gce-ipvs |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I didn't see anything notably different from the previous PR, is that right?
/approve
/lgtm
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: c28b55846c9e534c9899e15c35f6bdf1aeff35e8
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: RyanAoh, thockin The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
// Create the LoadBalancerStatus with the filtered IPs | ||
for _, ip := range ipFamilyMap[sct.ipFamily] { | ||
info.loadBalancerStatus.Ingress = append(info.loadBalancerStatus.Ingress, v1.LoadBalancerIngress{IP: ip}) | ||
if ipFamily := proxyutil.GetIPFamilyFromIP(ing.IP); ipFamily == sct.ipFamily && proxyutil.IsVIPMode(ing) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this need unit test coverage, added in #120068
if ipFamily := proxyutil.GetIPFamilyFromIP(ing.IP); ipFamily == sct.ipFamily && proxyutil.IsVIPMode(ing) { | ||
info.loadBalancerVIPs = append(info.loadBalancerVIPs, ing.IP) | ||
} else { | ||
invalidIPs = append(invalidIPs, ing.IP) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
we should not log IPs with ipMode proxy as invalid, fixed in #120068
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
Implementation of KEP-1860
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: