cluster-api-provider-vsphere
cluster-api-provider-vsphere copied to clipboard
(feature) Shared IPAM IPRanges for both vips and vm ips
Describe the solution you'd like
When managing a workload cluster via cluster-api automate the assignment of the vip and vm ips.
On a namespace level:
- one or more InClusterIPPool resources
- label applied to InClusterIPPool resources: 'cluster-api-vips: true'
- label applied to InClusterIPPool resources: 'cluster-api-vm-ips: true'
- both labels may be applied to an InClusterIPPool resource
On a global level:
- one or more GlobalInClusterIPPool resources
- label applied to GlobalInClusterIPPool resources: 'cluster-api-vips: true'
- label applied to GlobalInClusterIPPool resources: 'cluster-api-vm-ips: true'
- both labels may be applied to a GlobalInClusterIPPool resource
Workflow
- If namespaced InClusterIPPool resources are available in the ns where the cluster is deployed, use those to allocate vip and vm ips, based on labels.
- If namespaced InClusterIPPool resources are available in the ns where the cluster is deployed, but are exhausted, fail with event out-of-vips, out-of-vm-ips, or out-of-vips-and-vm-ips
- If no namespaced InClusterIPPool resources exist, use GlobalInClusterIPPool resources if available
Additional labels
- Because more than one provider may be in use, and it may be desirable for all providers to use the same InClusterIPPools and/or GlobalInClusterIPPools, this can be enabled by applying the label 'cluster-api-allow-all-providers: true'
- If someone wishes to use GlobalInClusterIPPool resources, if the namespaced InClusterIPPools resources are exhausted, this may be enabled by adding a label 'cluster-api-allow-overflow-vips: true' and/or 'cluster-api-allow-overflow-vm-ips: true'
Anything else you would like to add:
- Allocating a vip is something that should be automated, in the same way that allocating a vm ip should be automated.
- Would allow for VIP_IP_RANGES in the ~/.cluster-api/clusterctl.conf in addition to NODE_IP_RANGES.
- Because labels are being used, this new feature would not break any existing implementations.
Note: one example implementation but not using the IPAM provider, but AVI/AKO/NSX instead (note I never tried it):
https://github.com/vmware-tanzu/load-balancer-operator-for-kubernetes/
I think this kind of problem qualifies to be a project independent of CAPV. Coupling with the IPAM provider may be a good thing because it would use standardised resources already, however I think lot's of use-cases may need to work together with proprietary IPAM systems and directly integrating them may be more feasible (e.g. Infoblox).
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues.
This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:
- After 90d of inactivity,
lifecycle/staleis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/stalewas applied,lifecycle/rottenis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/rottenwas applied, the issue is closed
You can:
- Mark this issue as fresh with
/remove-lifecycle stale - Close this issue with
/close - Offer to help out with Issue Triage
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle stale
/remove-lifecycle stale
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues.
This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:
- After 90d of inactivity,
lifecycle/staleis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/stalewas applied,lifecycle/rottenis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/rottenwas applied, the issue is closed
You can:
- Mark this issue as fresh with
/remove-lifecycle stale - Close this issue with
/close - Offer to help out with Issue Triage
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle stale
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues.
This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:
- After 90d of inactivity,
lifecycle/staleis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/stalewas applied,lifecycle/rottenis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/rottenwas applied, the issue is closed
You can:
- Mark this issue as fresh with
/remove-lifecycle rotten - Close this issue with
/close - Offer to help out with Issue Triage
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle rotten
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.
This bot triages issues according to the following rules:
- After 90d of inactivity,
lifecycle/staleis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/stalewas applied,lifecycle/rottenis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/rottenwas applied, the issue is closed
You can:
- Reopen this issue with
/reopen - Mark this issue as fresh with
/remove-lifecycle rotten - Offer to help out with Issue Triage
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/close not-planned
@k8s-triage-robot: Closing this issue, marking it as "Not Planned".
In response to this:
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.
This bot triages issues according to the following rules:
- After 90d of inactivity,
lifecycle/staleis applied- After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/stalewas applied,lifecycle/rottenis applied- After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/rottenwas applied, the issue is closedYou can:
- Reopen this issue with
/reopen- Mark this issue as fresh with
/remove-lifecycle rotten- Offer to help out with Issue Triage
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/close not-planned
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.