On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 1:03:42 AM UTC-5, Tim Hockin wrote: > The GKE team has heard the desire for this and is looking at possible > ways to provide it. > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:56 PM, <csala...@devsu.com> wrote: > > 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.
Hi, are there any updates on this feature? Is it on the roadmap of the GKE team or it hasn't been planned yet? -- 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.
