Uploaded image for project: 'OpenShift Request For Enhancement'
  1. OpenShift Request For Enhancement
  2. RFE-2824

IngressController should support the definition of loadBalancerIP on the LoadBalancer service

    XMLWordPrintable

Details

    • False
    • None
    • False
    • Not Selected
    • 0
    • 0% 0%

    Description

      1. Proposed title of this feature request: support for ingress loadBalancerIP

      2. What is the nature and description of the request?
      When an ingress controller is deployed with LoadBalancerService as endpointPublishingStrategy should be possible to define the loadBalancerIP of the service exposing the router.

      Here an example of CRD:

      apiVersion: operator.openshift.io/v1
kind: IngressController
metadata:
  namespace: openshift-ingress-operator
  name: default
spec:
  endpointPublishingStrategy:
    type: LoadBalancerService
    loadBalancer:
      scope: Internal
      loadBalancerIP: xxx.yyy.zzz.www

      3. Why does the customer need this?

      • In this way the cluster admin has control over the public IP used by the ingress router, simplifying the automation of the external LB configuration.
      • Without this feature the admin needs to patch the service complicating the management of the cluster.
      • If the ingress is for some reasons re-deployed the admin needs to patch again the service.

      4. List any affected packages or components.

      • Ingress Controller

      Attachments

        Issue Links

          is duplicated by

          Feature Request - Feature requests from customers and/or users RFE-2884 Openshift Ingress Controller provision static/predefined IP for service load balancer

          • Normal - To be worked after urgent and high priorities are resolved. This term is chosen when the severity of an issue is relatively close to the level of effort to fix it. The existence of an easily implemented workaround can also lead to this priority level instead of a higher priority.
          • Deferred
          relates to

          Feature Request - Feature requests from customers and/or users RFE-3498 Need the stable LoadBalancer IP

          • Major - To be worked after higher priority work items are addressed. When the severity is high and the effort to change it is low to moderate, this term is chosen. Issues in this category likely have an existing workaround but implementation or execution may be non-trivial.
          • Under Review

          Feature Request - Feature requests from customers and/or users RFE-2127 [GCP] Allow Ingress ILB to define a specific subnet

          • Normal - To be worked after urgent and high priorities are resolved. This term is chosen when the severity of an issue is relatively close to the level of effort to fix it. The existence of an easily implemented workaround can also lead to this priority level instead of a higher priority.
          • Accepted

          Outcome - Organizational objective focused on a measurable outcome. May be in support of larger strategic goals. OCPSTRAT-261 [Outcome] Support external DNS for OpenShift on Cloud Providers (Phase II)

          • Critical - To be worked on immediately following BLOCKER issues.
          • In Progress

          Activity

            People

              ddharwar@redhat.com Deepthi Dharwar
              pbertera@redhat.com Pietro Bertera
              Votes:
              8 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              23 Start watching this issue

              Dates

                Created:
                Updated: