Reserve Static IP if a static IP name is provided and it doesn't exist

[retpolanne]

This PR creates Static IPs if a static IP name is provided but it wasn't reserved by the user.

Currently, GLBC will check if the provided static IP name translates to an existing reserved static IP. If it doesn't, then it's up to the user to reserve it.

However, there might be a case where you expect GLBC to reserve it for you with the name provided (e.g. if you are deploying a new Ingress for an app using Kustomize, you may not want to execute extra steps only to reserve the static IP, and you may also want GLBC to manage it if you delete an ingress).

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @vinicyusmacedo. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: vinicyusmacedo
To complete the pull request process, please assign mrhohn
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @mrhohn in a comment when ready.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[spencerhance]

Hm, this was the previous behavior, but we recently reverted that in #1080. @prameshj

[prameshj]

Correct, this was reverted since it would cause an unexpected ingress outage, if the static ip specified eventually got created by the user. The next ingress sync would switch to using that IP without much warning.

[retpolanne]

@spencerhance ops, sorry, I didn't see that.

Can this patch be considered in any way? It would be great if GLBC could manage IPs with a user-provided address name.

[prameshj]

Since we just reverted the behavior, adding this patch would be a regression. Can we introduce a new annotation for this? Feel free to send out a PR for that change. It would make the address management code a bit more tricky, we need to consider all the cases to make sure IPs aren't leaked. @rramkumar1 @bowei

[rramkumar1]

@vinicyusmacedo Echoing the previous statement, feel free to send a new PR but note that it would have a high bar for submission since this area of the code is tricky.