OCPBUGS-36859: Support NODEIP_HINT in IPI deployments too #4973
Conversation
Originally this was only enabled for UPI deployments because in IPI we expected the node IP to match the VIP subnet. However, since then two scenarios have come up where that may not be true: - VSphere clusters are often deployed with VIPs that are not on the Machine Network - User-namaged loadbalancers may be on any subnet In either of these cases we currently fall back to the remote worker behavior of selecting based on the default route. This is a problem if there are two interfaces, both with default routes. The order of activation can cause nondeterministic behavior. This deliberately does not support the old KUBELET_NODEIP_HINT name that the UPI service does because it was never a thing in IPI and we don't need the backward compatibility with it.
openshift-ci-robot
added
jira/valid-reference
|
@cybertron: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-36859, which is invalid:
Comment The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
/cc @mkowalski |
|
/jira refresh |
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
jira/valid-bug
|
@cybertron: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-36859, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. 3 validation(s) were run on this bug
In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
openshift-ci-robot
removed
the
jira/invalid-bug
|
@cybertron: The following tests failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. 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. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
| @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ contents: | | |||
| --prefer-ipv6 \ | |||
| {{end -}} | |||
| --retry-on-failure \ | |||
| ${NODEIP_HINT:-} \ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Grepping the repo I see we do ${NODEIP_HINT:-${KUBELET_NODEIP_HINT:-}}; \. Which one do you want here, yours or the one that repo already has?
(lgtm anyway because I read it's only about compatibility or lack; no opinion from my side, your call)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I noted that in the PR description: "This deliberately does not support the old KUBELET_NODEIP_HINT name that the UPI service does because it was never a thing in IPI and we don't need the backward compatibility with it."
|
/lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: cybertron, mkowalski The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Originally this was only enabled for UPI deployments because in IPI we expected the node IP to match the VIP subnet. However, since then two scenarios have come up where that may not be true:
This deliberately does not support the old KUBELET_NODEIP_HINT name that the UPI service does because it was never a thing in IPI and we don't need the backward compatibility with it.
- What I did
- How to verify it
- Description for the changelog