Custom infrastructure provider support #88
Replies: 3 comments 2 replies
-
Thanks for starting the discussion, @andreykont: the issue has been migrated here since we'd like to keep the Issue section just for bug reports. I couldn't agree more with you, and I'll keep my experience short on providing support for the Kamaji Control Plane provider to multiple Infrastructure providers. Even tho we have some Cluster API contracts, it's still not yet clear to me how to deal with the externally managed Control Planes, such as Kamaji. The first implementation has been achieved with the CAPO community and we agreed to have the infrastructure Cluster patched by Kamaji since it's the duty to create the Load Balancer: even tho all the current implementations are doing so, I'm not really sure this is something broadly accepted by the CAPI community, also considering that in most of the infrastructure Providers the With that said, my personal idea was to clearly state what we're supporting, and what we don't, just to prevent potential issues with adopters complaining it's not working as expected. Trying to summarize an outcome from this, I would propose trying to engage with the Cluster API folks and formalize what we would expect from the whole community to have a fully and comformant support not only for Kamaji itself, but for all the externally managed control plane providers. This would require having several meeting with the community, explaining what we've done, and what we're pointing to, as well as educating the whole community projects in getting ready in supporting this. Let me know if you're up in helping us on this. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
As I said before I have an idea. And I'm ready to write a proposal with user stories and some explanation. But let's discuss the general idea of that proposal. I think kamaji-control-plane-provider should not patch Infrastructure cluster because:
User story 1: Required Kamaji functionality:
Required kamaji-control-plane-provider functionality:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hello. Ok... I guess you agree, my approach doesn't support assign dynamic IP address at creation time. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hello.
What about if KCP will support for any type of infrastructure provider?
Any infrastructure provider has to support this specification to it's infrastructure cluster.
It seems that in spite of infrastructure type KCP does almost the same. KCP patches controlPlaneEndpoint host and port.
This feature will make it possible to use custom infrastructure providers together with KCP provider.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions