You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Users may not want all listeners in a gateway to be affected by a DNSPolicy. It should be possible for a user to define a policy that only targets the listeners they want managed DNS managed for.
Use case: I want to define different weighting for different listener hosts.
Options
Note each of these may get implemented and may be required.
This would allow a DNSPolicy to target a specific listener in the gateway. This is a useful option but has a downside in that it would require a policy per listener
Note this would require us to wait until GA or use main for a while of the GWAPI as the types are not in the recent 0.8 release.
What
Users may not want all listeners in a gateway to be affected by a DNSPolicy. It should be possible for a user to define a policy that only targets the listeners they want managed DNS managed for.
Use case: I want to define different weighting for different listener hosts.
Options
Note each of these may get implemented and may be required.
https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api/blob/800024e13f634545934ae10d9de82513f6f2798c/apis/v1alpha2/policy_types.go#L52 that adds a section name to the target ref
https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api/blob/800024e13f634545934ae10d9de82513f6f2798c/geps/gep-713.md?plain=1#L1247
This would allow a DNSPolicy to target a specific listener in the gateway. This is a useful option but has a downside in that it would require a policy per listener
Note this would require us to wait until GA or use main for a while of the GWAPI as the types are not in the recent 0.8 release.
Done
use the new policy types https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api/blob/de8675f27a35bae354027a832b1335cc167a96c2/apis/v1alpha2/policy_types.go#L156
Investigate using the new target ref
sectionName
understand if targets can overlap https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/CR0H13KGA/p1695713117110159
How should status be handled
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: