Should there be a virtual service for the Openshift master?

[pmorie]

It occurred to me today looking at @pweil-'s work on the F5 router that we have to specially pass the URL of the OpenShift master to the router pod. If we had a virtual service for the OpenShift master like kubernetes-{,ro} the router pod would be able to discover it via the normal env linking mechanism, and later, via DNS or whatever discovery is in fashion.

Thoughts? @liggitt @csrwng @smarterclayton @ironcladlou @pweil- @abhgupta

[liggitt]

that would be awesome as long as we have all the bits that go along with it (scheme: http or https), trusted certs (for https), and a way to make sure the trusted certs are valid for the IP/DNS the service is listed as (the master's cert won't be valid for some randomly assigned service IP...).

[liggitt]

a lot of this has surfaced in the upstream services reorg discussion

[pweil-]

Yeah, I think this would be handy in general, for infrastructure components specifically. We'd want to make sure access is restricted but namespace privs should be taking care of that for us.

[pmorie]

@liggitt Those are good points, won't this be the same as for the kube master service eventually?

[smarterclayton]

Someone would need to work upstream to make the publish function usable by us.

[smarterclayton]

But yes, this is on the the list for 3.0.

[derekwaynecarr]

@smarterclayton - what is needed to make it usable by us? If you have some thoughts I can make the change as part of my work creating the default namespace

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 31, 2015, at 12:29 PM, Clayton Coleman notifications@github.com wrote:

Someone would need to work upstream to make the publish function usable by us.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[smarterclayton]

Expose publish in pkg/master in a way that allows someone to define a maintained service. Basically a "NewServicePublisher" that takes a function to define endpoints and one to define the service if it needs to be created.

On Jan 31, 2015, at 1:36 PM, Derek Carr notifications@github.com wrote:

@smarterclayton - what is needed to make it usable by us? If you have some thoughts I can make the change as part of my work creating the default namespace

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 31, 2015, at 12:29 PM, Clayton Coleman notifications@github.com wrote:

Someone would need to work upstream to make the publish function usable by us.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[derekwaynecarr]

Will pull something together monday.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 31, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Clayton Coleman notifications@github.com wrote:

Expose publish in pkg/master in a way that allows someone to define a maintained service. Basically a "NewServicePublisher" that takes a function to define endpoints and one to define the service if it needs to be created.

On Jan 31, 2015, at 1:36 PM, Derek Carr notifications@github.com wrote:

@smarterclayton - what is needed to make it usable by us? If you have some thoughts I can make the change as part of my work creating the default namespace

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 31, 2015, at 12:29 PM, Clayton Coleman notifications@github.com wrote:

Someone would need to work upstream to make the publish function usable by us.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[smarterclayton]

#1510 exposes openshift.default.local via DNS but does not create an extra service.