-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 373
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
Add global except list for egress to avoid SNAT #2749
Conversation
c5a5781
to
00a59f8
Compare
/test-all |
/test-ipv6 |
/test-e2e |
1 similar comment
/test-e2e |
/test-all |
@tnqn hi, can you help review this MR... |
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.
@leonstack Thanks for the PR, I have some comments.
768e4b2
to
fa8a33f
Compare
/test-all |
be1563e
to
92f2307
Compare
How about:
|
247cde8
to
9a5337f
Compare
/test-all |
Good suggestion, I have fixed it. |
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.
This implementation does not work for Windows? Could we add Windows support too? It might be required for running Antrea on GKE Windows.
HI, like @tnqn said, Egress feature is not supported on Windows yet: https://github.com/antrea-io/antrea/blob/main/docs/feature-gates.md#requirements-for-this-feature-6 |
We need a way to bypass the default SNAT / masquerade on Windows. I am fine to have a separate PR for that. But we need it. @wenyingd @lzhecheng |
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.
@leonstack Antrea 1.4 code freeze is this week, could you resolve the conflict and address the remaining comment if this is supposed to be included?
22ab277
to
6521b29
Compare
@tnqn Hi, I have fixed the conflict and the remaining comment, please help review again~ |
/test-all |
6521b29
to
22e8642
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2749 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 40.63% 52.69% +12.05%
===========================================
Files 158 283 +125
Lines 19907 23824 +3917
===========================================
+ Hits 8089 12553 +4464
+ Misses 11044 9875 -1169
- Partials 774 1396 +622
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
22e8642
to
7d7a266
Compare
de47f98
to
affc90e
Compare
/test-conformance |
/test-e2e |
/test-networkpolicy |
Hi @tnqn, some cases failed in Kind/E2e test, I'm not sure these cases have any relationship for this PR. |
/test-all |
For some environment, some destination(not podCIDR/svcCIDR) can be communicate with each other directly for better network performance, we should avoid SNAT for such destination. Signed-off-by: Yang Li <yang.li@transwarp.io>
affc90e
to
fae1187
Compare
/test-networkpolicy |
@tnqn Hi, the required check all passed, could you help to review this PR again:-) |
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.
LGTM.
For some environment, some destination(not podCIDR/svcCIDR) can be communicate with each other directly for better network performance, we should avoid SNAT for such destination. Signed-off-by: Yang Li <yang.li@transwarp.io>
fae1187
to
5a7d220
Compare
/test-conformance |
/test-all |
/test-integration |
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.
LGTM
For some environment, some destination(not podCIDR/svcCIDR) can be
communicate with each other directly for better network performance,
we should avoid SNAT for such destination.
Signed-off-by: Yang Li yang.li@transwarp.io