Add k8s.node in semantic conventions
#1341
Conversation
|
It looks like |
|
I think it would be important to first clarify what we want to have in |
| | Attribute | Type | Description | Examples | Required | | ||
| |---|---|---|---|---| | ||
| | `k8s.node.name` | string | The name of the node. | `opentelemetry-node` | No | | ||
| | `k8s.node.ip` | string | The address of the node (dotted decimal for IPv4 or [RFC5952](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5952) for IPv6. | `127.0.0.1` | No | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this the external IP or internal IP? (see https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/architecture/nodes/#addresses). It may be worth explicitly using k8s.node.external_ip and k8s.node.internal_ip instead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You're right; explicitly declare the type of address might better.
Besides, I found k8s may have multiple ExternalIP and InternalIP. Maybe we should use k8s.node.external_ipsand k8s.node.internal_ips and use string[] as type instead.
For instance: ['127.0.0.1', '127.0.0.2']
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@XSAM can you give me a link to a doc which says there may be multiple ExternalIP and InternalIP? I haven't been able to find this in Kubernetes docs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I haven't been able to find any documentation specifically about multiple internal or external, but the API definition definitely supports it. I did find an issue that references someone setting multiple IPs of the same type as well: kubernetes/kubernetes#61921
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We do not use arrays for ip address elsewhere in semantic conventions (e.g. net.peer.ip) but using arrays here here looks justified.
I would prefer to avoid the complication and just have a single ip address, but I do not see a reasonable good behavior that uses just one of the ip addresses if the source of the data can have multiple.
| - id: ip | ||
| type: string | ||
| brief: > | ||
| The address of the node (dotted decimal for IPv4 or [RFC5952](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5952) for IPv6. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you pls comment on what IP to prefer?
|
CC: @dashpole |
|
This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 7 days. |
|
Closed by (#1390) |
Resolve #1334