Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add possibility to disable kube-proxy #2088
Add possibility to disable kube-proxy #2088
Changes from 1 commit
6cfdd79
abf42e2
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
what is the alternative value of this field?
if
""
implies kube-proxy mode this should be reflected in a comment above.for the API change, as is, this could be useful if one day kind decides to implement it's own proxy ALA Cilium.
adding another ProxyMode.
but if there are no plans for that and if the demand to skip kube-proxy is not high, the better alternative would have been to configure this via kubeadm's v1beta3 ClusterConfiguration.
of course, a couple of problems with that are:
a more flexible feature in kind would be to allow passing extra args to the
kubeadm init/join
commands the same way kubeadm allows passing such to the kubelet / control-plane. as per how cobra, go's CLI works, subsequent flags with the same key would override prior ones.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"" implies iptables mode.
Once it's ready, we can change the way we disable kube-proxy.
If we need to pass more flags to kubeadm, then it makes sense. At the moment, it's only one flag.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
for the API of this field I think it should be
if there are other proxies they should provide their installation, same we are doing with the cni
I think we already discussed this in another issue 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
kubelet etc though are moving away from this in favor of config, which also seems to be the case for kubeadm (phases in v1beta3), I don't think we should promote reliance on dependency flags versus structured configuration.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
flags are indeed the riskier option.