support 2 tier control over sticky_persistent sessions

[travisghansen]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Better control over the balancing logic of sticky_persistent when clients do not have a valid cookie value (or don't support cookies for whatever reason) by replacing the currently random selection. I've implemented the ability to control the 2nd tier of balancing by using the load-balance annotation to select any of the existing balancers (excluding the sticky_* balancers to prevent infinite loops).

If load-balance annotation is not present in an otherwise sticky_persistent configuration the new features are entirely ignored and will simply fallback to the existing return self.instance:random_except(failed_upstreams).

Our particular use-case is to replace an existing F5 config using k8s+ingress-nginx which selects the 2nd tier by client IP. This PR solves that use-case generically by effectively allowing any of the existing balancers to be leveraged as the 2nd tier.

Some examples:

# using consistent hashing based on client IP
nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/affinity: cookie
nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/affinity-mode: persistent
nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/load-balance: chash
nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/upstream-hash-by: $remote_addr

# ewma
nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/affinity: cookie
nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/affinity-mode: persistent
nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/load-balance: ewma

# round_robin
nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/affinity: cookie
nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/affinity-mode: persistent
nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/load-balance: round_robin

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• CVE Report (Scanner found CVE and adding report)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Documentation only

Which issue/s this PR fixes

How Has This Been Tested?

Tested with an on-prem cluster using metallb with externalTrafficPolicy set to Local to ensure consistent client IP ($remote_addr). I have removed various debugging statements but had them spread everywhere to test the various logic flows. Beyond testing the pin-by-IP logic I also tested round_robin and ewma as secondary balancers as well. On the surface all seems sane at this point.

Checklist:

• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I've read the CONTRIBUTION guide
• I have added unit and/or e2e tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-ingress-nginx canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	6e6d331
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-ingress-nginx/deploys/654d1a60fa9ab60008d16316

[k8s-ci-robot]

This issue is currently awaiting triage.

If Ingress contributors determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the triage/accepted label and provide further guidance.

The triage/accepted label can be added by org members by writing /triage accepted in a comment.

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/test-infra repository.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @travisghansen!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/ingress-nginx 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes/ingress-nginx has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @travisghansen. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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/test-infra repository.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: travisghansen
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign puerco for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment