-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 295
Add support for CoreDNS as DNS provider #1345
Add support for CoreDNS as DNS provider #1345
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1345 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 37.42% 37.45% +0.02%
==========================================
Files 68 68
Lines 4283 4285 +2
==========================================
+ Hits 1603 1605 +2
Misses 2454 2454
Partials 226 226
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
@@ -817,6 +820,7 @@ type KubeDnsAutoscaler struct { | |||
} | |||
|
|||
type KubeDns struct { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, this should retain the name for backward compatibility for now.
But how about renaming this to ClusterLocalDns
in the future?
KubeDns
sounds like literally specific to kube-dns
, that is just one of cluster local DNS server implementations available to Kubernetes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I appreciate your effort to keep compatibility with kube-dns. Looks great overall!. Thank you for your contribution @etiennetremel 👍
If a user switches provider on an existing cluster, do both deployments run side by side and one has to be manually deleted? We may want to add a note about that. |
- --default-params={"linear":{"coresPerReplica":{{ .KubeDns.Autoscaler.CoresPerReplica }},"nodesPerReplica":{{ .KubeDns.Autoscaler.NodesPerReplica }},"min":{{ .KubeDns.Autoscaler.Min}}}} | ||
- --logtostderr=true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Was logtostderr
intentionally removed here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, at least for me! Good catch.
I was trying to figure out if #792 is still really needed when using CoreDNS. There seems to be some discussion in kubernetes/kubernetes#32749 about that, it might be that we could deploy CoreDNS as a Daemon Set and reduce the component count involved. |
@c-knowles Hey! I got a chance to revisit this. And it seems like the momentum is to use CoreDNS as a node-local dns caching agent, as you've said. See the sig-network proposal at https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-network/0030-nodelocal-dns-cache.md, which is implemented in the upstream at kubernetes/kubernetes#70555 |
Add support for CoreDNS as DNS provider. Fix #1075