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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

KEP-1860 - Propose beta graduation and add missing PRR #4509

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Feb 19, 2024
Merged

KEP-1860 - Propose beta graduation and add missing PRR #4509

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
430f4a7
Propose beta for kep 1860
rikatz Feb 9, 2024
01919b4
Fix review comments
rikatz Feb 9, 2024
b69cbc4
Fix review comments
rikatz Feb 12, 2024
c1ea401
More comments review
rikatz Feb 14, 2024
94bd667
Add PRR review fixes
rikatz Feb 18, 2024
c5ccc0c
Add upgrade/downgrade tests
rikatz Feb 18, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions keps/prod-readiness/sig-network/1860.yaml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4,3 +4,5 @@
kep-number: 1860
alpha:
approver: "@wojtek-t"
beta:
approver: "@wojtek-t" # temptative
rikatz marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
213 changes: 50 additions & 163 deletions keps/sig-network/1860-kube-proxy-IP-node-binding/README.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -189,138 +189,75 @@ Yes. It is tested by `TestUpdateServiceLoadBalancerStatus` in pkg/registry/core/

### Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning

<!--
This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
-->

###### How can a rollout or rollback fail? Can it impact already running workloads?

<!--
Try to be as paranoid as possible - e.g., what if some components will restart
mid-rollout?
A rollout can fail in case the new API is supported and consumed by CCM,
but not all nodes get kube-proxy updated, so part of the workloads on a node will
start sending the traffic to a LoadBalancer, while the others may still have the
loadbalancer IP configured on a node interface.
rikatz marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

Be sure to consider highly-available clusters, where, for example,
feature flags will be enabled on some API servers and not others during the
rollout. Similarly, consider large clusters and how enablement/disablement
will rollout across nodes.
-->
In case of a rollback, kube-proxy will also rollback to the default behavior, re-adding
the LoadBalancer interface. This can fail for workloads that may be already relying
on the new behavior (eg. sending traffic to the LoadBalancer expecting some additional
features, like PROXY and TLS Termination as per the Motivations section).
rikatz marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

###### What specific metrics should inform a rollback?

<!--
What signals should users be paying attention to when the feature is young
that might indicate a serious problem?
-->
N/A
rikatz marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

###### Were upgrade and rollback tested? Was the upgrade->downgrade->upgrade path tested?

<!--
Describe manual testing that was done and the outcomes.
Longer term, we may want to require automated upgrade/rollback tests, but we
are missing a bunch of machinery and tooling and can't do that now.
-->
No.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should test that before enabling Beta by default.
Can you please describe the scenario here now (and ensure that you actually run it - manual run is fine) before enabling beta?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will do next here, will keep this thread open and close once I have results

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@wojtek-t did the test here. Just a node (that I have added to the KEP), because this feature is mostly related to cloud providers, the test I did was, on a 3 node KinD cluster, enabled the feature flag, installed MetalLB as the LB, ran some tests, and disabled the Feature flag to check how kube-proxy and apiserver would behave.

It is registered on the steps, let me know if you need something else.


###### Is the rollout accompanied by any deprecations and/or removals of features, APIs, fields of API types, flags, etc.?

<!--
Even if applying deprecation policies, they may still surprise some users.
-->
No.

### Monitoring Requirements

<!--
This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.

For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
previous answers based on experience in the field.
-->

###### How can an operator determine if the feature is in use by workloads?

<!--
Ideally, this should be a metric. Operations against the Kubernetes API (e.g.,
checking if there are objects with field X set) may be a last resort. Avoid
logs or events for this purpose.
-->
Checking if the field `.status.loadBalancer.ingress.ipMode` is set to `Proxy`
rikatz marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

###### How can someone using this feature know that it is working for their instance?

<!--
For instance, if this is a pod-related feature, it should be possible to determine if the feature is functioning properly
for each individual pod.
Pick one more of these and delete the rest.
rikatz marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
Please describe all items visible to end users below with sufficient detail so that they can verify correct enablement
and operation of this feature.
Recall that end users cannot usually observe component logs or access metrics.
-->

- [ ] Events
- Event Reason:
- [ ] API .status
- [X] API .status
- Condition name:
- Other field:
- [ ] Other (treat as last resort)
- Details:
- Other field: `.status.loadBalancer.ingress.ipMode` not null
rikatz marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
- [X] Other:
- Details: To detect if the traffic is being directed to the LoadBalancer and not
directly to another node, the user will need to rely on the LoadBalancer logs,
and the destination workload logs to check if the traffic is coming from one Pod
to the other or from the LoadBalancer.
rikatz marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved


###### What are the reasonable SLOs (Service Level Objectives) for the enhancement?

<!--
This is your opportunity to define what "normal" quality of service looks like
for a feature.

It's impossible to provide comprehensive guidance, but at the very
high level (needs more precise definitions) those may be things like:
- per-day percentage of API calls finishing with 5XX errors <= 1%
- 99% percentile over day of absolute value from (job creation time minus expected
job creation time) for cron job <= 10%
- 99.9% of /health requests per day finish with 200 code

These goals will help you determine what you need to measure (SLIs) in the next
question.
-->
The quality of service for clouds using this feature is the same as the existing
quality of service for clouds that don't need this feature

###### What are the SLIs (Service Level Indicators) an operator can use to determine the health of the service?

<!--
Pick one more of these and delete the rest.
-->

- [ ] Metrics
- Metric name:
- [Optional] Aggregation method:
- Components exposing the metric:
- [ ] Other (treat as last resort)
- Details:
N/A

###### Are there any missing metrics that would be useful to have to improve observability of this feature?

<!--
Describe the metrics themselves and the reasons why they weren't added (e.g., cost,
implementation difficulties, etc.).
-->
* On kube-proxy, a metric containing the count of IP programming vs service type would be useful
to determine if the feature is being used, and if there is any drift between nodes
* TBD: Should this metric be implemented?
rikatz marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

### Dependencies

<!--
This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
-->

###### Does this feature depend on any specific services running in the cluster?

<!--
Think about both cluster-level services (e.g. metrics-server) as well
as node-level agents (e.g. specific version of CRI). Focus on external or
optional services that are needed. For example, if this feature depends on
a cloud provider API, or upon an external software-defined storage or network
control plane.

For each of these, fill in the following—thinking about running existing user workloads
and creating new ones, as well as about cluster-level services (e.g. DNS):
- [Dependency name]
- Usage description:
- Impact of its outage on the feature:
- Impact of its degraded performance or high-error rates on the feature:
-->
- cloud controller manager / LoadBalancer controller
- LoadBalancer controller should set the right .status field for `ipMode`
- In case of this feature outage nothing happens, as LoadBalancers will be
already out of sync with services in case of CCM being crashed
rikatz marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
- kube-proxy or other Service Proxy that implements this feature
- Network interface IP address programming
- In case of this feature outage, the user will get the same result/behavior as
if the `ipMode` field has not been set.
rikatz marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

### Scalability

Expand All @@ -336,79 +273,34 @@ previous answers based on experience in the field.

###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new API calls?

<!--
Describe them, providing:
- API call type (e.g. PATCH pods)
- estimated throughput
- originating component(s) (e.g. Kubelet, Feature-X-controller)
Focusing mostly on:
- components listing and/or watching resources they didn't before
- API calls that may be triggered by changes of some Kubernetes resources
(e.g. update of object X triggers new updates of object Y)
- periodic API calls to reconcile state (e.g. periodic fetching state,
heartbeats, leader election, etc.)
-->
No.

###### Will enabling / using this feature result in introducing new API types?

<!--
Describe them, providing:
- API type
- Supported number of objects per cluster
- Supported number of objects per namespace (for namespace-scoped objects)
-->
No.

###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new calls to the cloud provider?

<!--
Describe them, providing:
- Which API(s):
- Estimated increase:
-->
No.

###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing size or count of the existing API objects?

<!--
Describe them, providing:
- API type(s):
- Estimated increase in size: (e.g., new annotation of size 32B)
- Estimated amount of new objects: (e.g., new Object X for every existing Pod)
-->
- API type: v1/Service
- Estimated increase size: new string field. Supported options at this time are max 6 characters (`Proxy`)
- Estimated amount of new objects: 0

###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing time taken by any operations covered by existing SLIs/SLOs?

<!--
Look at the [existing SLIs/SLOs].

Think about adding additional work or introducing new steps in between
(e.g. need to do X to start a container), etc. Please describe the details.
No.

[existing SLIs/SLOs]: https://git.k8s.io/community/sig-scalability/slos/slos.md#kubernetes-slisslos
-->

###### Will enabling / using this feature result in non-negligible increase of resource usage (CPU, RAM, disk, IO, ...) in any components?

<!--
Things to keep in mind include: additional in-memory state, additional
non-trivial computations, excessive access to disks (including increased log
volume), significant amount of data sent and/or received over network, etc.
This through this both in small and large cases, again with respect to the
[supported limits].

[supported limits]: https://git.k8s.io/community//sig-scalability/configs-and-limits/thresholds.md
-->
No.

###### Can enabling / using this feature result in resource exhaustion of some node resources (PIDs, sockets, inodes, etc.)?

<!--
Focus not just on happy cases, but primarily on more pathological cases
(e.g. probes taking a minute instead of milliseconds, failed pods consuming resources, etc.).
If any of the resources can be exhausted, how this is mitigated with the existing limits
(e.g. pods per node) or new limits added by this KEP?

Are there any tests that were run/should be run to understand performance characteristics better
and validate the declared limits?
-->
No

### Troubleshooting

Expand All @@ -425,19 +317,14 @@ details). For now, we leave it here.

###### How does this feature react if the API server and/or etcd is unavailable?

Same for any loadbalancer/cloud controller manager, the new IP and the new status will not be
set.

kube-proxy reacts on the IP status, so the service LoadBalancer IP and configuration will be pending.

###### What are other known failure modes?

<!--
For each of them, fill in the following information by copying the below template:
- [Failure mode brief description]
- Detection: How can it be detected via metrics? Stated another way:
how can an operator troubleshoot without logging into a master or worker node?
- Mitigations: What can be done to stop the bleeding, especially for already
running user workloads?
- Diagnostics: What are the useful log messages and their required logging
levels that could help debug the issue?
Not required until feature graduated to beta.
- Testing: Are there any tests for failure mode? If not, describe why.
-->
N/A

###### What steps should be taken if SLOs are not being met to determine the problem?
N/A
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions keps/sig-network/1860-kube-proxy-IP-node-binding/kep.yaml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -14,9 +14,9 @@ approvers:
- "@thockin"
- "@andrewsykim"

stage: "alpha"
stage: "beta"

latest-milestone: "v1.29"
latest-milestone: "v1.30"

milestone:
alpha: "v1.29"
Expand Down