-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 716
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
Should kubeadm check that ip_forward is turned on? #580
Comments
Related to kubernetes/kubernetes#40182? (fixed by kubernetes/kubernetes#52569 in 1.9) |
The systctl is distinct from the iptables setting which is what that PR targets; both have to be on for Kubernetes to work. |
But docker sets ip_forward. You're talking about other CRI? |
beside ipv4 there is also ipv6 forwarding and also question, should it be enabled for all interfaces or not ? |
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta. |
/assign @kad |
@kad could you verify that this is all fixed now? |
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 63589, 63644, 63861, 63872, 63847). If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/cherry-picks.md">here</a>. kubeadm preflight check for IPv4 and IPv6 forwarding **What this PR does / why we need it**: adds preflight check for IP forwarding **Which issue(s) this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged)*: Fixes kubernetes/kubeadm#580 **Special notes for your reviewer**: **Release note**: ```release-note kubeadm now checks that IPv4/IPv6 forwarding is enabled ```
FEATURE REQUEST
I came across someone whose kubeadm-created cluster was somewhat broken because IP forwarding was turned off. I believe it's mandatory for Kubernetes; for example this guide says it has to be on.
So, should this be added to the preflight checks?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: