HAProxy Ingress Controller #1810
Conversation
|
[CLA-PING] @odacremolbap Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a CNCF open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). 📝 Please visit https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/projects/cncf to sign. Once you've signed, please reply here (e.g. "I signed it!") and we'll verify. Thanks.
|
k8s-github-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: no
|
Can I ask that you integrate with the nginx controller? |
|
Sounds like merging common functionality is the best path to allow anyone build a new Ingress.
Caveats Command line arguments are also tied to functionality. I guess we can minimise the number of arguments (which should be common to all ingress controllers, be it nginx, haproxy, vulcand, traefik, ...) and use config maps managed by each implementation So, I'd say yes, we will help integrating ingress controllers to reduce maintenance and allow anyone to easily write her own, but for now we will be maintaining this one, since it's being already used by our clients. I'd propose to contribute this one, and in the meantime, we will open a thread or continue with this one to get both ingress controllers merged. As soon as the new ingress will be ready, we will be glad to drop the current HAProxy. |
|
[CLA-PING] @odacremolbap Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a CNCF open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). 📝 Please visit https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/projects/cncf to sign. Once you've signed, please reply here (e.g. "I signed it!") and we'll verify. Thanks.
|
|
@aledbf has started work on modularizing the nginx controller, maybe you can take a look when you have time? It's the first step, not the only, IIUC the next step after we release nginx-controller:0.9 is to expose an interface: #1847. I think we need to be consistent about what more we accept into contrib at this point, see: #1440, though it breaks my heart to turn down an haproxy ingress controller :( I'm hoping we can find some middle ground |
|
@bprashanth what would be the middle ground you'd propose? We're not in a position where we can take the nginx stuff and refactor that then refactor haproxy into it. Our team size is quite quite small. Is this being actively discussed in SIG Network? If so, we'd like to join that conversation. Happy to come back in and add our code to whatever the go forward solution for load balancing is. Ideally, we'd get a sense of timing on that -- like what's the ETA for the changes so that others can contribute load balancers or are all load balancers blocked in the project at this point until someone re-factors NGINX? Could we drop NGINX out of the mix and simply build something from scratch and allow contribs from folks for nginx, haproxy, traefik, etc? |
Manuel is already doing that in the mentioned pr, maybe help with a review pass? might be a good way to get familiar with the code
We could, if we need fleshing out, but I think we understand what's required at this point?
This is a little hard to pin down, because it depends on whenever contributors have time to refactor. As mentioned in #1440 (comment), it's not clear that there's too much value in maintaining a completely independent controller here in contrib vs linking to an implementation in your repo.
Sure. If you think that's the better approach please file a bug with some reasoning why, and we can take it from there. Personally I don't think it'll be too hard to just refactor. |
|
[CLA-PING] @odacremolbap Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a CNCF open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). 📝 Please visit https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/projects/cncf to sign. Once you've signed, please reply here (e.g. "I signed it!") and we'll verify. Thanks.
|
|
[CLA-PING] @odacremolbap Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a CNCF open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). 📝 Please visit https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/projects/cncf to sign. Once you've signed, please reply here (e.g. "I signed it!") and we'll verify. Thanks.
|
1 similar comment
|
[CLA-PING] @odacremolbap Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a CNCF open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). 📝 Please visit https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/projects/cncf to sign. Once you've signed, please reply here (e.g. "I signed it!") and we'll verify. Thanks.
|
k8s-github-robot
added
cncf-cla: yes
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] The Following OWNERS Files Need Approval:
We suggest the following people: |
|
@odacremolbap we should refactor into the new way ingress controllers are working. |
|
@odacremolbap we are very keen to use this with features like proxy protocol, etc. is this going to be merged with k8s? |
|
Any status update on the PR? |
|
@jefflaplante I think most of the development effort happens in https://github.com/kubernetes/ingress, but I didn't see haproxy backend yet. |
|
@jefflaplante @ddysher here is the link to the haproxy ingress controller https://github.com/kubernetes/ingress/blob/master/docs/catalog.md |
|
@aledbf thanks for the pointer. Do we plan to add those into kubernetes/ingress? |
Related to #1809
Simple Ingress spec only HAProxy ingress controller
This change is