Skip to content

Node DNS should answer PTR records for stateful sets #14400

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 5, 2017

Conversation

smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor

A stateful set pod should be able to perform a PTR lookup on its IP and
get its hostname (from the pod value) pointing back to its entry in the
stateful set. Because multiple services can exist for a pod, we choose
the oldest cached entry.

This does not support the PTR lookup from the master due to the impact
of keeping those objects in memory. We are in the process of
transitioning to remove the master from the DNS chain.

Fixes #13866

@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor Author

[test]

@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor Author

@openshift/networking

@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor Author

[test]

1 similar comment
@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor Author

[test]

@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor Author

@sdodson this is dependent on DNS work

Copy link
Contributor

@knobunc knobunc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. The concept and code seem sound.

@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor Author

[test]

@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor Author

[severity:bug]

A stateful set pod should be able to perform a PTR lookup on its IP and
get its hostname (from the pod value) pointing back to its entry in the
stateful set. Because multiple services can exist for a pod, we choose
the oldest cached entry.

This does *not* support the PTR lookup from the master due to the impact
of keeping those objects in memory. We are in the process of
transitioning to remove the master from the DNS chain.
@liggitt
Copy link
Contributor

liggitt commented Jun 21, 2017

merge as blocker?

@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor Author

Waiting for changes from installer so this can be tested.

@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor Author

[test] again to create new RPMs for @sdodson

@sdodson
Copy link
Member

sdodson commented Jun 21, 2017

That'll persist rpms somewhere I can grab them?

@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor Author

smarterclayton commented Jun 21, 2017 via email

@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor Author

@sdodson
Copy link
Member

sdodson commented Jul 2, 2017

[test]

@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor Author

[test] now that everything has landed

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Evaluated for origin test up to b562284

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

continuous-integration/openshift-jenkins/test FAILURE (https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/test_pull_request_origin/2966/) (Base Commit: c9f829c) (PR Branch Commit: b562284)

@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor Author

Tests are green with @sdodson 's changes in, merging

@smarterclayton smarterclayton merged commit be5e626 into openshift:master Jul 5, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants