<html><body><p>Hi everyone, <br> I am running into a potential issue in implementing the support for load balancer in k8s services. After a chat with sdake, I would like to run this by the team for feedback/suggestion. <br>First let me give a little background for context. In the current k8s cluster, all k8s pods and services run within a private subnet (on Flannel) and they can access each other but they cannot be accessed from external network. The way to publish an endpoint to the external network is by specifying this attribute in your service manifest:<br> type: LoadBalancer<br> Then k8s will talk to OpenStack Neutron to create the load balancer pool, members, VIP, monitor. The user would associate the VIP with a floating IP and then the endpoint of the service would be accessible from the external internet.<br> To talk to Neutron, k8s needs the user credential and this is stored in a config file on the master node. This includes the username, tenant name, password. When k8s starts up, it will load the config file and create an authenticated client with Keystone. <br> The issue we need to find a good solution for is how to handle the password. With the current effort on security to make Magnum production-ready, we want to make sure to handle the password properly. <br> Ideally, the best solution is to pass the authenticated token to k8s to use, but this will require sizeable change upstream in k8s. We have good reason to pursue this but it will take time.<br> For now, my current implementation is as follows:
<ol type="1"><li>In a bay-create, magnum client adds the password to the API call (normally it authenticates and sends the token)
<li>The conductor picks it up and uses it as an input parameter to the heat templates
<li>When configuring the master node, the password is saved in the config file for k8s services.
<li>Magnum does not store the password internally. </ol> <br> This is probably not ideal, but it would let us proceed for now. We can deprecate it later when we have a better solution. So leaving aside the issue of how k8s should be changed, the question is: is this approach reasonable for the time, or is there a better approach?<br><br>Ton Ngo, <br> <BR>
</body></html>