Skip to content
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

Add support for TCP_UDP to NLB TargetGroups and Listeners (rebase) #3807

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

lyda
Copy link

@lyda lyda commented Aug 13, 2024

This is a work in progress - I need to test it.

Issue

#1608 (comment)

And based on this PR: #2275

Description

Previously, aws-load-balancer-controller ignored extra overlapping
ServicePorts defined in the Kubernetes Service spec if the external port
numbers were the same even if the protocols were different (e.g. TCP:53,
UDP:53).

This behavior prevented users from exposing services that support TCP
and UDP on the same external load balancer port number.

This patch solves the problem by detecting when a user defines multiple
ServicePorts for the same external load balancer port number but using
TCP and UDP protocols separately. In such situations, a TCP_UDP
TargetGroup and Listener are created and SecurityGroup rules are
updated accordingly. If more than two ServicePorts are defined, only the
first two mergeable ServicePorts are used. Otherwise, the first
ServicePort is used.

Checklist

  • Added tests that cover your change (if possible)
  • Added/modified documentation as required (such as the README.md, or the docs directory)
  • Manually tested
  • Made sure the title of the PR is a good description that can go into the release notes

BONUS POINTS checklist: complete for good vibes and maybe prizes?! 🤯

  • Backfilled missing tests for code in same general area 🎉
  • Refactored something and made the world a better place 🌟

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: lyda
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign m00nf1sh 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:

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Aug 13, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Welcome @lyda!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/aws-load-balancer-controller 🎉. 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-sigs/aws-load-balancer-controller 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
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @lyda. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs 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-sigs/prow repository.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 13, 2024
@danielloader
Copy link

danielloader commented Aug 20, 2024

Thanks for taking this up, I get to subscribe to another pull request now. Hope you have much better luck than the last one.

Just in time for HTTP3 going more mainstream!

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Sep 24, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Oct 10, 2024
@lyda lyda force-pushed the tcpudp-lyda branch 4 times, most recently from b025fee to 23e2f43 Compare October 18, 2024 11:06
@lyda
Copy link
Author

lyda commented Oct 18, 2024

OK, I think I've addressed the issues with the rebase. But the verify step is now failing. Any ideas why?

@lyda
Copy link
Author

lyda commented Nov 4, 2024

@M00nF1sh / @oliviassss : Hey there, I think this is done and reviewable. I've run it in a test EKS system and it does what I needed it to do. However I'm not an expert in this code base or with load balancers so would love feedback from yourselves. Thank you!

M00nF1sh and others added 3 commits November 4, 2024 09:55
Previously, aws-load-balancer-controller ignored extra overlapping
ServicePorts defined in the Kubernetes Service spec if the external port
numbers were the same even if the protocols were different (e.g. TCP:53,
UDP:53).

This behavior prevented users from exposing services that support TCP
and UDP on the same external load balancer port number.

This patch solves the problem by detecting when a user defines multiple
ServicePorts for the same external load balancer port number but using
TCP and UDP protocols separately. In such situations, a TCP_UDP
TargetGroup and Listener are created and SecurityGroup rules are
updated accordingly. If more than two ServicePorts are defined, only the
first two mergeable ServicePorts are used. Otherwise, the first
ServicePort is used.

Note: rebasing errors would be my fault -- Kevin Lyda

Signed-off-by: Kevin Lyda <[email protected]>
Copy link

@z0rc z0rc Nov 4, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There are a lot of mixed tab/space indentations introuduced in this file. It's quite prominent when viewing this file here in github (your text editor may mask this).

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The new commit should fix that.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done.

In general it would likely be better to put json objects in json files so you'd avoid this mix of formatting; just have vim pipe the buffer to jq. But that sort of change seemed out of scope.

@lyda lyda force-pushed the tcpudp-lyda branch 2 times, most recently from 9c7a254 to 1fb8e33 Compare November 6, 2024 06:06
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Nov 6, 2024
@lyda
Copy link
Author

lyda commented Nov 11, 2024

I've done manual testing and it worked fine. There really aren't docs to update. The information that the current aws-load-balancer-controller doesn't support listening to UDP and TCP on the same port number is information you'll find in the issues.

Is there a slack/discord/irc channel I can chat about this to address any remaining issues?

@z0rc
Copy link

z0rc commented Nov 11, 2024

Is there a slack/discord/irc channel I can chat about this to address any remaining issues?

I believe developers (I'm not one of them) are somewhat reachable via https://slack.k8s.io/, channel #provider-aws.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants