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

KIND_EXPERIMENTAL_DOCKER_NETWORK is not encouraged, need a replacement. #2657

Closed
vorishirne opened this issue Mar 5, 2022 · 4 comments
Closed
Labels
kind/support Categorizes issue or PR as a support question.

Comments

@vorishirne
Copy link

I currently isolate my two clusters by creating isolated networks for them. My metallb otherwise crashes if some ip is occupied by another cluster. What is the way ahead. Why to even discourage a working solution. Why It can't be kept enabled in long term.

@vorishirne vorishirne added the kind/support Categorizes issue or PR as a support question. label Mar 5, 2022
@BenTheElder
Copy link
Member

My metallb otherwise crashes if some ip is occupied by another cluster. What is the way ahead.

Configure metallb installations with different subnets?

Why to even discourage a working solution. Why It can't be kept enabled in long term.

This was only provided as a stopgap when networking behavior changed. It may change again, and non-standard networks will not be properly configured. We do not have the bandwidth to support nonstandard networking. Similarly we do not support non-standard CNI, but we've left for now the ability to install your own.

Keeping this enabled will not allow us to make assumptions about kind managing the network in the future, which may be needed to solve other higher priority issues like #2045

@vorishirne
Copy link
Author

vorishirne commented Mar 9, 2022

Configure metallb installations with different subnets?

My scripts are independent of each other, and are not aware if the subnet is being occupied.

Got it, but can't KIND manage more than one Network?
I mean, it creates and manages a default network "kind".
Same process everything, just take the name of network from user instead of the hardcoded one.

I am not able to distinguish, how just using a different "NAME" for that network, totally identical to "kind", can result in any issue. Its all same.

@aojea
Copy link
Contributor

aojea commented Mar 9, 2022

I am not able to distinguish, how just using a different "NAME" for that network, totally identical to "kind", can result in any issue. Its all same.

is adding a dependency on the network , that means more surface area for bugs and for maintain ... and this can be done using the API easily,

https://github.com/aojea/kind-networking-plugins/tree/main/baremetal

we encourage people to expand KIND creating their own tools, but is not sustainable to keep growing the core with the amount of time we have to support it

@vorishirne
Copy link
Author

Oh, I assume you mean, what I want can be done via your baremetal. I will try this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind/support Categorizes issue or PR as a support question.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants