Closed adrianchiris closed 4 months ago
Hey Adrian -- this one is bigger than a breadbox :) Would you mind joining the NPWG or Multus maintainer's call to chat us about it?
I think there's some subtlety here between "attachment name" and "interface name" and the nuance there in the spec as well, we should chat it out. Thanks!
sure, will raise it in one of the meetings. ATM on PTO (paternity leave) so will bring it up once im back. (~3 weeks )
I think my readthrough was wrong, and that this is totally reasonable given teh spec:
4.1.2.1.5 "interface" This optional key with value of type string requires the implementation to use the given name for the pod interface resulting from this network attachment. This key’s value must be a valid Linux kernel interface name.
@Eoghan1232 - wondering if I could get your eyes on this one
lgtm - apologies I have been away for some time and only back now.
@adrianchiris @dougbtv WDYT about merging this one?
thanks for the submission, after considerable discussion: we couldn't find a reason why underscores would be invalid
interface name should not be limited to DNS-1123 label format. instead validate interface name if provided in pod network annotation in a similar manner as iproute2[1].
this will allow to request interface names such as: "uplink_p0"
[1]https://github.com/iproute2/iproute2/blob/11740815bfe69d6ee2cad7c608a8edc70147209a/lib/utils.c#L832