Feature Request to Possibly Host more than one DNS Zones on K8gb about k8gb HOT 7 CLOSED

@Zak-Anderson feel free to reopen if needed

from k8gb.

This is however not in the domain of GSLB anymore is it?

DC1-us.k8gb.gb and DC2-us.k8gb.gb will in no way have any global load balancing strategy applied to them as they are DC (Datacenter)/region specific.

IMHO this is not something k8gb should handle as this is not GSLB related, unless the scope of this project changes. DNS level "load balancing" is required for GSLB concerns but this feature seems to allow for a convenient way to configure DNS records for DC/region specific Ingress, with nothing to do with load balancing. I'm just concerned we are drifting away from the core responsibilities k8gb is meant to handle...

from k8gb.

@donovanmuller Generally agree but I see it a little bit differently.

k8gb

1. create GSLB enabled dns record of e.g. DC.k8gb.gb
2. It also creates DC-us and DC-eu following convention over configuration so the clusters/workloads behind GSLB can be deterministically accessed directly bypassing LB strategy. Local DNS load-balancing is a nice side-effect of it.
3. No current Gslb spec modification required as again it will be convention only
4. This feature can be enabled/disabled in operator configuration

from k8gb.

I disagree with point 2 in principal:

Local DNS load-balancing is a nice side-effect of it.

DNS is a poor local load balancer (TTL, no advanced strategies around least connection, etc.) and you can achieve better results with other projects or configurations. If the main goal of point 2 is to make DNS automation easier, then that should be the responsibility of other projects/tools suited to that goal.

deterministically accessed directly bypassing LB strategy

This also implies that every Ingress resource could handle local load balancing independently, which is generally not the case. DNS would either point to a layer 4 load balancer (via a shared VIP potentially) in front of the ingress node IPs or the ingress nodes themselves but at an ingress controller level, not at an individual Ingress resource level.

from k8gb.

@donovanmuller / @Zak-Anderson any objections I close this one? Seems out of k8gb scope in the end

from k8gb.

@ytsarev happy to close from my side. I agree it's beyond the scope of this project.

from k8gb.

Happy to close

from k8gb.