Skip to content

Conversation

alstolten
Copy link
Member

@alstolten alstolten commented Jun 3, 2025

This PR fixes a documentation bug that tell ECE users that they can use 9243 or 443 ports interchangeably when accessing Kibana. That's true for ECH but not for ECE. On ECE the port will depend on the customer load balancer configuration, and ECE proxies only support 9243.

Preview:

@alstolten alstolten requested a review from a team as a code owner June 3, 2025 09:24
@eedugon eedugon added the bug Something isn't working label Jun 3, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@eedugon eedugon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggesting a different statement pointing ECE users to the details of from where the URL comes from.

@eedugon
Copy link
Contributor

eedugon commented Jun 3, 2025

@shainaraskas : I'd like to get your thoughts of the new wording suggestion for this PR.

ECE docs included by mistake a suggestion for users to use either 9243 or 443 ports interchangeably when accessing Kibana URL. That's ok in ECH, but has never been ok in ECE, as on ECE that depends on the external load balancers configuration.

I'm not sure if my suggestion looks good enough or if you would prefer to show this in a different way.

The URL comes form the ECE "Endpoint URL" configuration, which the ECE admin needs to configure, and this URL must be aligned with their traffic and solution design, usually pointing to their external Load Balancer to whatever port they like (that's irrelevant for us).

Of course if a customer configures their load balancer listening in both 9243 and 443, then the original statement would be valid (the client could use either 9243 or 443 when accessing Kibana), but ECE proxies themselves only listen in port 9243.

Maybe we should explain this better in the load balancer or endpoint URL pages more than in this page.

Co-authored-by: Edu González de la Herrán <25320357+eedugon@users.noreply.github.com>
@eedugon eedugon self-assigned this Jun 3, 2025
@eedugon eedugon changed the title Update access-kibana.md ECE docs: update access-kibana.md Jun 3, 2025
@eedugon
Copy link
Contributor

eedugon commented Jun 3, 2025

If we want to keep the original message around SSO (which maybe there's no need) we could also consider:

Proposal

The URL provided to access {{kib}} is based on the endpoint URL configured in the ECE Settings UI. This URL should resolve either to your external load balancer, or directly to the ECE proxies.

If your load balancer is configured to accept traffic on both ports 9243 and 443, you can use either port when connecting to {{kib}}. However, SSO will only work with the port provided by the UI. Direct connections to ECE proxies must use port 9243, as ECE proxies only listen on this port for deployments traffic.

@shainaraskas
Copy link
Collaborator

@eedugon I think the edit is good - the SSO info should be kept, I think, just in case.

what does "deployments traffic" mean? Does it mean "traffic directly to deployments"?

Finally, we have a rendering error in the version currently in this branch. looks like it needs a little more indentation.

image

@eedugon
Copy link
Contributor

eedugon commented Jun 3, 2025

deployments traffic = Elasticsearch and Kibana traffic, as opposite of ECE admin UI / API traffic --> Probably better to keep {{es}} and {{kib}} traffic, as it's clearer.

traffic sent directly to deployments is a concept not feasible on ECE, everything goes through the proxies.

@eedugon
Copy link
Contributor

eedugon commented Jun 4, 2025

@shainaraskas : I've updated a bit the sentence and fixed the indentation issue, let me know your thoughts.

I've kept the SSO message, linking to the page where we describe the ECE SSO feature, and I've called it built-in SSO, but maybe you prefer a different name :)

@eedugon eedugon requested a review from a team June 4, 2025 15:35
Copy link
Collaborator

@shainaraskas shainaraskas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

shainaraskas

This comment was marked as duplicate.

shainaraskas

This comment was marked as duplicate.

@eedugon eedugon merged commit 0bbb334 into main Jun 5, 2025
6 checks passed
@eedugon eedugon deleted the alstolten-patch-1 branch June 5, 2025 12:32
@eedugon
Copy link
Contributor

eedugon commented Jun 5, 2025

Backport PR created in cloud docs for 3.x: https://github.com/elastic/cloud/pull/141781

@eedugon
Copy link
Contributor

eedugon commented Jun 6, 2025

New backport PR is https://github.com/elastic/cloud/pull/141836

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

bug Something isn't working

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants