-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 87
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
New strategy combining local with LB service #235
Comments
Thanks for the idea. Just a thought - Isn't it a kinda special case where the local system has access to both clusters over their LB IPs, but they don't have a network path between each other. Also please keep in mind that Also, wouldn't something like this make more sense to open a network path between the clusters? In any case, unfortunately, at the moment I don't have the time to implement new features. PRs are very welcome though. |
Systems that are only accessible through a VPN for example. And if I can access both clusters API's for port forwarding I can probably also reach a LB on each even if either cluster can't reach the other. |
Wonder if something like wstunnel (https://github.com/erebe/wstunnel) could be used as a sidecar to tunnel the data over an ingress controller instead of an LB. This would still allow the client to be the proxy but shifts the load off the kubeAPIserver and would support any existing ingress controller |
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
There may be cases where there's no network path between the source and destination clusters and this case is covered by the local strategy but that seems to use k8s port-forwarding putting extra load on the API server.
Describe the solution you'd like
This strategy could use the same approach as the existing local strategy but create the LBs and use them for tunnelling instead of k8s port forwarding.
Describe alternatives you've considered
The local strategy would work for my use case but it will be a problem for larger amounts of data.
Additional context
The port-forward approach is still valid for some use cases but trying to use the LB first could be a good option to alleviate the impact on the API server.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: