KEP 1645: clarify port conflict rules #4887
Conversation
MrFreezeex
commented
Sep 30, 2024
•
MrFreezeex
commented
- One-line PR description: Clarify port conflict rules based on Service port rules
- Issue link: Multi-Cluster Services API #1645
- Other comments: The existing version of the KEP doesn't state explicitly the associated Service port rules and what should be implemented is confusing here and prone to implementation errors.
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
k8s-ci-robot
added
kind/kep
MrFreezeex
force-pushed
the
kep1645-port-rules
branch
2 times, most recently
from
148e9a9 to
2aec509
Compare
keps/sig-multicluster/1645-multi-cluster-services-api/README.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Signed-off-by: Arthur Outhenin-Chalandre <arthur@cri.epita.fr>
MrFreezeex
force-pushed
the
kep1645-port-rules
branch
from
2aec509 to
012e81d
Compare
|
Thanks! /approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: MrFreezeex, skitt 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
|
Thanks, I think this does help clarify the expected behavior. /lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
| be used for multiple non-identical (`port`, `protocol`, `appProtocol`) service | ||
| ports by different constituent services, the conflict resolution policy will | ||
| determine which values are used by the derived service. | ||
| union of service ports declared on its constituent services. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As a followup to this, it seemed like there was some debate over whether union should actually be intersection instead? Refs kubernetes-sigs/mcs-api#78 (comment)
As currently specified, either some intelligent endpoint selection would need to be applied based on target port if some ports are not available on some endpoints (I'm not sure if this is possible/practical), or some requests would fail non-deterministically if routed to an endpoint lacking a given service port.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not entirely sure about the pros/cons/context of this decision, guessing we can discuss it at the next meeting
