Skip to content
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

Waypoint Extensions #3005

Open
ilrudie opened this issue Nov 27, 2023 · 7 comments
Open

Waypoint Extensions #3005

ilrudie opened this issue Nov 27, 2023 · 7 comments

Comments

@ilrudie
Copy link

ilrudie commented Nov 27, 2023

(This is used to request new product features, please visit https://discuss.istio.io for questions on using Istio)

Describe the feature request

As part of the work to allow for vendors to create their own waypoint implementations we're going to need a mechanism to configure which GatewayClass.gateway.networking.k8s.io Istiod should consider waypoints. Present proposal is to use mechConfig

Describe alternatives you've considered

Using label selection ambient.istio.io/waypoint: true on the GatewayClass or Gateway Resources

Affected product area (please put an X in all that apply)

[ ] Configuration Infrastructure
[ ] Docs
[ ] Installation
[X] Networking
[ ] Performance and Scalability
[ ] Policies and Telemetry
[ ] Security
[ ] Test and Release
[ ] User Experience

Additional context
Istio’s Layered Future, Policy and Conformance

@howardjohn
Copy link
Member

Can we discuss this further before execution? I think we can use 100% standard Gateway API with no custom annotations with some tweaks. I will present in WG wednesday.

@ilrudie
Copy link
Author

ilrudie commented Nov 27, 2023

threw out a quick PR with a meshConfig update, we can just close if there's a better direction

(updated PR to be WIP)

@hzxuzhonghu
Copy link
Member

why cannot GatewayClassSpec.ControllerName satisfy customize waypoint?

@ilrudie
Copy link
Author

ilrudie commented Nov 28, 2023

@hzxuzhonghu, I'm not sure I understand your proposal. Do you propose there should be some convention used in this field to identify controllers outside of istiod which have configured waypoint proxies?

@hzxuzhonghu
Copy link
Member

I mean user can do any customization deploying of waypoint based on ControllerName. For istio, istiod gateway deployment controller will handle it. Maybe i misunderstand your use case

@ilrudie
Copy link
Author

ilrudie commented Nov 28, 2023

This was meant to provide a way for non-istio waypoints to be discovered in the mesh. If you've got controller-x which configures a waypoint for some namespace/SA but istiod/ztunnel aren't aware that it's a waypoint (vs it being any other implementation of kube gateways) we won't send traffic to it and it won't be enforcing any policy.

Edit, I added a link to the doc which provides background in the Additional Context section above.

@hzxuzhonghu
Copy link
Member

Got it now, will take a look

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants