-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 457
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
GEP-2907: TLS mode and allowed routes #3190
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
/cc @candita |
I have no idea why the CI robot has put this in hold 🤔 /unhold |
geps/gep-2907/index.md
Outdated
| `HTTPRoute` | yes | no | | ||
| `GRPCRoute` | yes | no | | ||
| `TLSRoute` | yes | yes | | ||
| `TCPRoute` | yes | yes | |
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.
Is passthrough mode on a TCPRoute based on what we see in
gateway-api/apis/v1/gateway_types.go
Line 297 in e971a8d
TLS *GatewayTLSConfig `json:"tls,omitempty"` |
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.
E.g. it says It is invalid to set this field if the Protocol field is "HTTP", "TCP", or "UDP".
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.
It was based on a discussion we had about enabling TLS on TCPRoute. But I think that at least for the time being, even considering the high level of uncertainty the L4 routes have at the moment, we should be aligned with the current API specs, without aiming at improving it.
/hold |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: mlavacca 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:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
6fcc43f
to
4cfcb35
Compare
/retest |
Signed-off-by: Mattia Lavacca <[email protected]>
4cfcb35
to
cbff145
Compare
| `HTTPRoute` | yes | no | | ||
| `GRPCRoute` | yes | no | | ||
| `TLSRoute` | yes | yes | | ||
| `TCPRoute` | no | no | |
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.
We might need a note here that for TCPRoute, the packets are passed through untouched to the backend. If you want to terminate a TLS stream at a Gateway and forward a TCP stream unencrypted to the backend, use TLSRoute.
@mlavacca: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR. 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. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
What type of PR is this?
/kind gep
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR updates GEP-2907 with two different aspects:
This PR intends to reach an agreement that will make #2111 and #1474 addressable.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: