Adds an E2E test for using peered VPCs and an internal ELB

[josh-ferrell]

What type of PR is this?
/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:
Creates an E2E test for creating clusters in peered VPCs and creating a workload cluster using an internal ELB.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #3249

Special notes for your reviewer:

Checklist:

• squashed commits
• includes documentation
• adds unit tests
• adds or updates e2e tests

Release note:

Adds an E2E test that validates clusters in peered VPCs and cluster creation using an internal ELB.

[k8s-ci-robot]

@josh-ferrell: This issue is currently awaiting triage.

If CAPA/CAPI contributors determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the triage/accepted label and provide further guidance.

The triage/accepted label can be added by org members by writing /triage accepted in a comment.

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/test-infra repository.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @josh-ferrell. 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/test-infra repository.

[sedefsavas]

/ok-to-test

[josh-ferrell]

/test pull-cluster-api-provider-aws-e2e

[josh-ferrell]

/test pull-cluster-api-provider-aws-e2e

[josh-ferrell]

/test pull-cluster-api-provider-aws-e2e

[josh-ferrell]

/test pull-cluster-api-provider-aws-test

[josh-ferrell]

/test pull-cluster-api-provider-aws-e2e

[josh-ferrell]

@sedefsavas @Ankitasw Let me know if you have any feedback on this test.

[Ankitasw]

@josh-ferrell thank you for the PR.
Personally, I have never worked with peering VPC, so I would let @sedefsavas give feedback here.

[josh-ferrell]

@sedefsavas when you get a free moment will you review this PR?

[sedefsavas]

This is a great way to do both internal ELB and peering validation at the same time!

One question, instead of creating management cluster's infra, could we have used the ones auto-generated? In that case, we need to do some SDK calls to get the IDs and then do the peering with the workload cluster. Not asking to change the way it is, just curious.

Also, have you confirmed in your local that DeleteInfrastructure() is not leaving any resource behind? Not sure if we have the clean up logic in boskos for everything created here.

[sedefsavas]

It would be great to have a documentation for deployment in internet-restricted environments, possibly with a diagram of the scenario tested here. Do you want to open an issue for this?

[sedefsavas]

/lgtm
/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: sedefsavas

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [sedefsavas]

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

[josh-ferrell]

It would be great to have a documentation for deployment in internet-restricted environments, possibly with a diagram of the scenario tested here. Do you want to open an issue for this?

Technically the workload isn't Internet restricted egress wise, the API server is just on the internal ELB. I've been thinking we need to architect and document a validated airgapped deployment if we don't have one already. I can open an issue to do so.

[josh-ferrell]

This is a great way to do both internal ELB and peering validation at the same time!

One question, instead of creating management cluster's infra, could we have used the ones auto-generated? In that case, we need to do some SDK calls to get the IDs and then do the peering with the workload cluster. Not asking to change the way it is, just curious.

Also, have you confirmed in your local that DeleteInfrastructure() is not leaving any resource behind? Not sure if we have the clean up logic in boskos for everything created here.

I hadn't thought about using the CAPA created infrastructure to peer but I'm also still learning the SDK so it's now on my list to look into.

DeleteInfrastructure took some time to get consistent but I think we're well covered. I could add some additional validation and probably will when refactoring the security groups test to use the same setup.