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

ingress: use SDS, remove preconfigured gateway #22227

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 17, 2020

Conversation

howardjohn
Copy link
Member

This makes some improvements to our Ingress support. First, we remove
the Gateway installed during install. Then we can fix the autogenerated
internal Gateway to "properly" select the correct gateway deployment.
This should be configurable, I will add this once we add support for
IngressClass.

Next, support multiple tls blocks, and use SDS to pass these. This
aligns great with the Ingress model, where we are pointing to Secrets
already.

I also had to fix the controller to properly trigger events on Gateway
changes.

I also extended the tests to include HTTPS calls.

I recommend we merge #22134 in before this so we can have better testing

@howardjohn howardjohn requested review from a team as code owners March 16, 2020 21:35
@googlebot googlebot added the cla: yes Set by the Google CLA bot to indicate the author of a PR has signed the Google CLA. label Mar 16, 2020
@istio-testing istio-testing added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Mar 16, 2020
This makes some improvements to our Ingress support. First, we remove
the Gateway installed during install. Then we can fix the autogenerated
internal Gateway to "properly" select the correct gateway deployment.
This should be configurable, I will add this once we add support for
IngressClass.

Next, support multiple `tls` blocks, and use SDS to pass these. This
aligns great with the Ingress model, where we are pointing to Secrets
already.

I also had to fix the controller to properly trigger events on Gateway
changes.

I also extended the tests to include HTTPS calls.
Copy link
Contributor

@esnible esnible left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(I reviewed istioctl test changes only).

Copy link
Member

@liamawhite liamawhite left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Approving no-op istioctl changes.

@guyromb
Copy link

guyromb commented May 13, 2020

@howardjohn do you know under which Istio version will this be released?

@howardjohn
Copy link
Member Author

howardjohn commented May 13, 2020 via email

@guyromb
Copy link

guyromb commented May 13, 2020

Thanks @howardjohn
I am at the moment on 1.5.x Could we patch it into 1.5.3 as well (if there is such plan?) as at the moment it's fully breaking fresh installs. Or would you consider it "safe" to upgrade from 1.5.x to 1.6 (which will be released next week)? The release notes draft are not public, and I cannot really check for breaking changes.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cla: yes Set by the Google CLA bot to indicate the author of a PR has signed the Google CLA. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants