--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kubernetes-sig-network" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-sig-ne...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-sig-network/CABhP%3DtYzHgaWzCtjsh9DL9UzYt0do64%3DCgMc_enmrWqF9PX0sg%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-sig-network/CACVCA%3DdcydRf1OTkZx_DY3GugbFRNE230D5OVjg8wvEyQQQecQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kubernetes-sig-network" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-sig-ne...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-sig-network/CABhP%3Dtae8utFJxJH5zvRQB2Eo5b78bntQxotUZXOW5NMHduP3w%40mail.gmail.com.
Hey Antonio,With your solution, IIUC I think, if a topology relies on the CCM being a host network pod on the control plane nodes, this means that control plane Nodes will need to specify `—node-ip` always, is that correct?And is that not considered to be a breaking change?I expect at the moment there are a number of deployments of the CCM where there is an expectation that the CCM can run on your first, uninitialized control plane node. If these deployments haven’t set the `—node-ip` flag up to this point, when they are upgraded to 1.29 they will be required to change the cluster installation process to set the `—node-ip` flag going forward.Thanks,Joel
----
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kubernetes-sig-cloud-provider" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-sig-cloud...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-sig-cloud-provider/CABhP%3Dtae8utFJxJH5zvRQB2Eo5b78bntQxotUZXOW5NMHduP3w%40mail.gmail.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kubernetes-sig-cloud-provider" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-sig-cloud...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-sig-cloud-provider/4747C861-E8D3-4642-918F-50B27F73E50F%40redhat.com.
On 6 Oct 2023, at 15:13, Antonio Ojea <antonio.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 6:04 PM Antonio Ojea <antonio.o...@gmail.com> wrote:Hi,Following up on this topic as the existing behavior has broken some deployments https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/125348 (I apologize for this :( )It seems there is consensus on using https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/125337 to fix it.In addition, and due to how brittle is this area of the codebase, I've created the following document to try to consolidate and document the existing problems https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mqdVLQHIYjrzjy8Hq-FMysthHRL7ht0guk2uWI0FxKM/edit .I encourage all the SIG leads and people working on downstream Kubernetes deployments that depend on external cloud providers to chime in.
excellent summary in the doc Antonio, thank you for putting this together.i like the notion of extending the "0.0.0.0" or "::" discovery behavior to work in a similar manner with external cloud providers. although, i guess this would also put pressure on the CCM to choose the proper interface through configuration (which i would like) or some other mechanism. but, given the discussion on https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/125300 , it makes me think there will need to be some changes in the cloud-provider framework, and potentially the CCMs, to allow the discovery behavior. is that accurate? have i missed some details?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-sig-cloud-provider/CABhP%3DtbnMeLFkcNbH94rOsEsmNTqZ15kqXfwEMmBCWSft6L8rQ%40mail.gmail.com.