Question: Support of CRD for tcp services

[alexandrst88]

Hi! Is there is any plan to manage TCP services via CRDS object or Service annotations instead of putting into the ConfigMap?

I think it would very manageable if for example, each application could define it's own object for tcp load-balancing instead of sharing one Configmap, which could break other services due to human mistake.

[oktalz]

Hi, yes there is a plan to add CRDs (includinf tcp services), next release 1.6.0 will not use them (most likely), but version after it will have it if everything goes to plan

[almson]

Using CRDs to replace ConfigMap for exposing TCP ports would be nice, but perhaps a bit overkill. I hacked together a simpler solution which exposes any annotated NodePorts.

298

Sample Service:

  apiVersion: v1
  kind: Service
  metadata:
    name: myapp
    annotations:
      haproxy.org/expose: 'true'
      haproxy.org/ssl-offloading: 'true'
      haproxy.org/check: 'false'
      haproxy.org/send-proxy-protocol: 'proxy-v2'
      haproxy.org/whitelist: '1.2.3.4/32, 5.6.7.8/28'
  spec:
    selector:
      app: myapp
    type: NodePort
    ports:
    - name: port1
      protocol: TCP
      port: 8023
      nodePort: 30000
    - name: health
      protocol: TCP
      port: 8000
      nodePort: 30001

One of the big issues (upstream as well) is that deleted services don't delete their backends.

[stale[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[PKizzle]

Is this also planned for UDP services? It would be nice if a custom CRD would directly take into account TCP and UDP services.