ipv6 compatible ingress checks

[jorop]

Reference Issues or PRs

Addresses #2485
For ipv6 working, at least an update of keycloak is also necessary.

What does this implement/fix?

Ingress checks will be successful on ipv6 also using getaddrinfo instead of gethostbyname.

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds a feature)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing features not to work as expected)
• Documentation Update
• Code style update (formatting, renaming)
• Refactoring (no functional changes, no API changes)
• Build related changes
• Other (please describe):

Testing

• Did you test the pull request locally?
• Did you add new tests?

Any other comments?

[viniciusdc]

Hi @jorop, thank you for your contribution! We're currently in the midst of a significant update focused on our RBACs and JupyterHub, which might cause some delays in addressing your input.

We discussed this in our internal sync yesterday, and I’d like to invite you to join our community sync meetings as well: https://www.nebari.dev/docs/community/#community-meetings. These meetings are open to everyone and provide a great platform for further discussion. Please note that this item is not yet on our roadmap because we are assessing the stability of specific components that support IPv6 exclusively, which would require some more thought into it...

In the meantime, for backward compatibility, it would be beneficial to include a custom field in the ingress section of the nebari-config.yaml file. This field would allow us to toggle between different implementations as needed.

[viniciusdc]

@jorop I will be doing a check on this

[viniciusdc]

Hi @jorop, sorry for the late feedback; thanks for submitting the PR! Regarding your statement about updating the keycloak, can you elaborate further on why you see that as a requirement? I assume it's due to it only formally supporting it on >=20.x but I also would like to hear if you encountered any other settle back while playing around with an ipv6 deployment

[viniciusdc]

Can you add a test for get_ip as well?

[marcelovilla]

@jorop thank you for your contribution! We really appreciate the effort you've put into this PR.

At the moment, full IPv6 support is not on our immediate roadmap. While your PR is a great first step in that direction, we believe there’s still a significant amount of work required to fully implement it. Given this, we’re hesitant to merge it right now without a clearer plan for future development. Would you be interested in continuing to work on this? If so, we'd be happy to discuss what a complete implementation might look like.

Additionally, we'd love to understand more about your use case. Are you running a setup where IPv6 support is essential? Or does your contribution provide value in isolation, even without full IPv6 support? Your insights would help us assess the impact of this change.