[GEP-1911] websocket backend protocol conformance #2495
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
release-note-none
dprotaso
changed the title
|
/assign @arkodg @mlavacca @sunjayBhatia |
|
this PR looks good, lets wait for #2456 to land first, since this PR will need a rebase |
|
/cc @mlavacca |
| protocol: TCP | ||
| appProtocol: kubernetes.io/ws | ||
| port: 8082 | ||
| targetPort: 3000 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we really want to use the same targetPort for both TCP and WS traffic?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is your concern about using the same targetPort?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have no real concern, I was just wondering if this choice was backed by a specific reason. If not, I think we should prefer not to use the same back-side port for multiple front-side ports.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have no real concern, I was just wondering if this choice was backed by a specific reason. I think we should prefer not to use the same back-side port for multiple front-side ports.
Multiplexing HTTP/Websockets on the same port is really common. The only reason why I created a separate ServicePort with a unique port # is because of the following K8s limitation that's being tracked here - kubernetes/kubernetes#118407
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: dprotaso, mlavacca 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
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
/kind test
/area conformance
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR adds a conformance test validating implementations support websocket over cleartext when the target Kubernetes Service Service Port has a
kubernetes.io/wsappProtocolThis PR includes echo-basic changes so it will need to bumped after this PR
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Related #1911 #205
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: