On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 11:24:15 AM UTC-5, pa...@qwil.co wrote: > Yes, this is the right approach -- here's a detailed walk-through: > > https://github.com/johnlabarge/gke-nat-example > > On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 8:36:13 AM UTC-7, giorgio...@beinnova.it wrote: > > Hello, I've the same problem described there. I have a GKE cluster and I > > need to connect to an external service. I find the NAT solution is right > > for my needs, my cluster resizes automatically. @Paul Tiplady have you > > config the external NAT? Can you share your experiences? I tried following > > this guide > > https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/vpc/special-configurations#natgateway > > but seems it doesn't work. > > > > Thanks, > > Giorgio > > Il giorno mercoledì 3 maggio 2017 22:08:50 UTC+2, Paul Tiplady ha scritto: > > > Yes, my reply was more directed to Rodrigo. In my use-case I do resize > > > clusters often (as part of the node upgrade process), so I want a > > > solution that's going to handle that case automatically. The NAT Gateway > > > approach appears to be the best (only?) option that handles all cases > > > seamlessly at this point. > > > > > > > > > I don't know in which cases a VM could be destroyed, I'd also be > > > interested in seeing an enumeration of those cases. I'm taking a > > > conservative stance as the consequences of dropping traffic through > > > changing source-IP is quite severe in my case, and because I want to keep > > > the process for upgrading the cluster as simple as possible. From > > > https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2015/03/Google-Compute-Engine-uses-Live-Migration-technology-to-service-infrastructure-without-application-downtime.html > > > it sounds like VM termination should not be caused by planned > > > maintenance, but I assume it could be caused by unexpected failures in > > > the datacenter. It doesn't seem reckless to manually set the IPs as part > > > of the upgrade process as you're suggesting. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Evan Jones <evan....@bluecore.com> wrote: > > > > > > Correct, but at least at the moment we aren't using auto-resizing, and > > > I've never seen nodes get removed without us manually taking some action > > > (e.g. upgrading Kubernetes releases or similar). Are there automated > > > events that can delete a VM and remove it, without us having done > > > something? Certainly I've observed machines rebooting, but that also > > > preserves dedicated IPs. I can live with having to take some manual > > > configuration action periodically, if we are changing something with our > > > cluster, but I would like to know if there is something I've overlooked. > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Paul Tiplady <pa...@qwil.co> wrote: > > > > > > The public IP is not stable in GKE. You can manually assign a static IP > > > to a GKE node, but then if the node goes away (e.g. your cluster was > > > resized) the IP will be detached, and you'll have to manually reassign. > > > I'd guess this is also true on an AWS managed equivalent like CoreOS's > > > CloudFormation scripts. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Evan Jones <evan....@triggermail.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > > As Rodrigo described, we are using Container Engine. I haven't fully > > > tested this yet, but my plan is to assign "dedicated IPs" to a set of > > > nodes, probably in their own Node Pool as part of the cluster. Those are > > > the IPs used by outbound connections from pods running those nodes, if I > > > recalling correctly from a previous experiment. Then I will use Rodrigo's > > > taint suggestion to schedule Pods on those nodes. > > > > > > If for whatever reason we need to remove those nodes from that pool, or > > > delete and recreate them, we can move the dedicated IP and taints to new > > > nodes, and the jobs should end up in the right place again. > > > > > > > > > In short: I'm pretty sure this is going to solve our problem. > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
The approach of configuring a NAT works but it has 2 major drawbacks: 1. It creates a single point of failure (if the VM that runs the NAT fails) 2. It's too complex! In my use case I don't need Auto-scaling enabled right now, so I think it's better to just change the IPs of the VMs to be static. Anyways in the future I know I will need this feature. Does somebody know if there are there any plans to provide this feature in GKE? -- 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.
