-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
Added support for setting Proxy protocol per target group based on ServicePort #4079
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
k8s-ci-robot
merged 4 commits into
kubernetes-sigs:main
from
pthak94:proxy-protocol-per-target-group
Mar 17, 2025
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
to keep existing behavior, can you remove this line? the default for this attribute is false anyways.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@zac-nixon I'm assuming you meant remove only the else block and not the whole line. I can't think of any scenario where this can break the existing behavior. Can you please help me understand?
The intention of having the else block is for a situation where these attributes are set:
"service.beta.kubernetes.io/aws-load-balancer-target-group-attributes": tgAttrsProxyProtocolV2Enabled + "=true"
"service.beta.kubernetes.io/aws-load-balancer-proxy-protocol-per-target-group": "80, 443"
in this case, our new annotation will not do what we say it does, that is disable proxy_protocol for unspecified port 22. It will just enable it for all.
"service.beta.kubernetes.io/aws-load-balancer-proxy-protocol": "*"
still overrides everything as the documentation says.Do let me know what you think?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the explanation. I was just thinking that it would be nice to not have the
false
value set when we didn't need it. But I'm happy with the implementation as-is and I appreciate the work you did here :)