fix: internal ipv6 being used as external

[TroyKomodo]

Description

This change undoes a check for internal IPv6 addresses to be used when External IP has been requested.

Closes #4807

Checklist

• Unit tests updated
• End user documentation updated

[linux-foundation-easycla]

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ login: TroyKomodo / name: Troy (c735e76)

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @TroyKomodo!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/external-dns 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/external-dns has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @TroyKomodo. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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-sigs/prow repository.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign szuecs for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[mloiseleur]

@TroyKomodo This subject has already been discussed see #4574 (comment):

We are discussing external-dns change in https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/C771MKDKQ/p1723531094274339
and the InternalIP/ExternalIP topic was discussed in https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/C09QYUH5W/p1723197933110369 .
sig-network tech-leads said that node InternalIP/ExternalIP has no real meaning and different cloud providers might use it differently.

FTM, we concluded it should be provider specific. Wdyt ? Does it makes sense to you ? Do you think you can rework this PR accordingly ?

[TroyKomodo]

I think it doesn't make sense to force everyone to use a specific bug-fix related to AWS not assigning Node IPs correctly. If anything the default behaviour should likely be to not include the Internal IPv6 addresses as external at all unless an annotation is specified. I also think its a fringe use case in AWS since typically there you would make use of the ELBs rather than expose a port on a host.

I think, at a minimum it should check if the IPv6 address is even routable (not in a restricted range) before attempting to use it as an external address. However IMO the best approach is to not include Internal IPv6 addresses in the external addresses unless an annotation is specified to do so.

Am willing to rework the PR to be whatever is decided the best approach is.

[TroyKomodo]

@mloiseleur any updates here?

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all PRs.

This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the PR is closed

You can:

• Mark this PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
• Close this PR with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

[ivankatliarchuk]

/assign

Maintaining provider-specific behavior offers limited value. However, given the critical nature of this issue, evidenced by multiple discussions, pull requests, and reports highlighting that exposing private IPv6 publicly it as a bug and a potential security leak, I still ask to add of a temporary flag to disable this behavior. This flag would provide a crucial safety net for users who may be negatively impacted by the immediate removal of ipv6-exposing-specific configurations. And we will deprecate/flip/revert this behaviour somehow in the follow-up.

[ivankatliarchuk]

/lifecycle frozen

[k8s-ci-robot]

@ivankatliarchuk: The lifecycle/frozen label cannot be applied to Pull Requests.

In response to this:

/lifecycle frozen

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-sigs/prow repository.

[TroyKomodo]

Am willing to rework the PR to be whatever is decided the best approach is.

I was willing to rework this PR 3 months ago when I opened it. I am no longer willing. I am not sure how this issue has taken so long to be discussed. In my opinion it's a very simple to grasp. Don't force everyone to use a "bug-fix" that is specific to AWS. I agree with @jonasbadstuebner that this should be a breaking change because frankly it was a stupid change to merge in to begin with. There shouldn't be a flag to opt out of this behaviour. The other way around makes significantly more sense, that being a flag to opt in to this bug-fix for the 10s of people who rely on this feature in AWS. In fact it shouldn't even be a "flag" it should be an annotation to opt in.

[ivankatliarchuk]

I do understand that, thanks for reply. Please close the pull request then, and you or someone could re-open at some point if you decide so.

Hope you understand that I do not pocess decision-making authority or approve access in this project.

For anyone who may decide to take an ownership of deprecationg/chaning this behavior

To avoid breaking existing users, we should follow a simple deprecation policy for behaviours that a slated to be removed. Add a flag to disable this logic, and add a log.WARN("DEPRECATED will be removed in next minor release") or similar here

external-dns/source/compatibility.go

Line 163 in cd624b6

endpoints = append(endpoints, endpoint.NewEndpoint(hostname, recordType, address.Address))

.

That's quite a common practices, the feature either to evolve or need to be removed.