-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 817
Add support for K8S Gateway API #3661
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
From https://gateway-api.sigs.k8s.io/ > When using the Gateway API to manage ingress traffic, the Gateway resource defines a point of access at which traffic can be routed across multiple contexts -- for example, from outside the cluster to inside the cluster (north/south traffic).
|
||
test-gateway-ingress: | ||
# The main test configures autohttps, but this conflicts with testing | ||
# ingress/gateway which assume they can directly connect to proxy-public |
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.
In theory it should be possible to have autohttps working, but that would only be used for internal connections between the traefik ingress/gateway controller and the autohttps/proxy pod which effectively means it's no use, since the certificate is designed for external connections.
The certificate for external connections has to be managed by the gateway or ingress controller, not autohttps.
https://gateway-api.sigs.k8s.io/guides/tls/
I don't think autohttps is useful unless using a TCP LoadBalancer which passes network traffic straight through.
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.
Rereading https://gateway-api.sigs.k8s.io/guides/tls/#tls-configuration there's a Passthrough
mode, but this is Experimental and I don't see what benefit it offers for autohttps- it adds unnecessary complexity.
@Kyrremann I hope you don't mind, but I've rebased your PR #3222 and updated it with v1 instead of v1beta, removed the GKE specific resource, and added some tests.