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

Router should be accept proxy protocol on port 1936 #17619

Open
jkroepke opened this issue Dec 6, 2017 · 6 comments
Open

Router should be accept proxy protocol on port 1936 #17619

jkroepke opened this issue Dec 6, 2017 · 6 comments
Assignees
Labels
component/routing kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. lifecycle/frozen Indicates that an issue or PR should not be auto-closed due to staleness. priority/P2

Comments

@jkroepke
Copy link

jkroepke commented Dec 6, 2017

I'm using on the AWS the new NLB for loadbalancing the router.

AWS supports the proxy protocol days ago. I configure the IP:1936/healthz as healthcheck.

If the target group of the loadbalancer has active proxy protocol, the healthcheck are fired with proxy protocol, too. Since the port 1936 is handeld by the openshift-router process, it must be accept the proxy protocol to response valid answers for the loadbalancer.

Version

oc version

oc v3.7.0+7ed6862
kubernetes v1.7.6+a08f5eeb62
features: Basic-Auth GSSAPI Kerberos SPNEGO

Server
openshift v3.7.0+7ed6862
kubernetes v1.7.6+a08f5eeb62

Steps To Reproduce
  1. Setup a multiple Openshift Routers with active PROXY_PROTOCOL support.
  2. In AWS, setup a network loadbalancer, a target group (use ip as target instead instances!), define the healthcheck to HTTP:1936/healthz and enable the proxy protocol
Current Result

After some minutes, the health status will be unhealthy

Expected Result

All Target should be healthy

@pweil- pweil- added component/routing kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. priority/P2 labels Dec 6, 2017
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle stale

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Mar 6, 2018
@jkroepke
Copy link
Author

jkroepke commented Mar 6, 2018

/remove-lifecycle stale

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Mar 6, 2018
@jkroepke
Copy link
Author

jkroepke commented Mar 6, 2018

@knobunc Any idea?

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle stale

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Jun 4, 2018
@jkroepke
Copy link
Author

jkroepke commented Jun 4, 2018

/remove-lifecycle stale

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Jun 4, 2018
@jkroepke
Copy link
Author

/lifecycle frozen

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lifecycle/frozen Indicates that an issue or PR should not be auto-closed due to staleness. label Jul 31, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
component/routing kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. lifecycle/frozen Indicates that an issue or PR should not be auto-closed due to staleness. priority/P2
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants