On Nov 29, 2016 02:43, <r...@rackn.com> wrote: There is plenty of time and attention to bring up these issues in a collaborative way there. I don't see a need for a dedicated SIG and believe that the duplication is distracting for the community.
I'm at re:Invent this week if anyone wants to talk 1x1 Rob hi Rob, i will lean towards a separate SIG here and concur with Joseph. While on the surface, it seems that there is no need for a dedicated SIG, the reality is already different. For example, the implementation of load balancers has all the different cloud providers.. but no metal implementation. I agree it is easier to hook into cloud providers than haproxy/nginx...but it has been pretty hard for us to find documentation or help. Similarly the proposal for source ip preservation does not deal with non cloud use cases. (Check the bug for the load balancing umbrella issue and the source ip preservation proposal) Additionally, I found out pretty recently that the recommended orchestration tool for metal deployments is kargo... while for cloud is kops. This was repeated to me many times on the slack along with the advice that i should ask on the #kargo channel if I had questions on metal deployments. So the sig already exists in a manner of speaking - its #kargo. Its just not very easy to discover or create an agenda around. just my $0.02 Regards Sandeep -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes user discussion and Q&A" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-users@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/kubernetes-users. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
