Deprecate the term "Ubernetes" in favor of "Cluster Federation" and "Multi-AZ Clusters"

docs/design/control-plane-resilience.md

@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Documentation for other releases can be found at
 
 <!-- END MUNGE: UNVERSIONED_WARNING -->
 
-# Kubernetes/Ubernetes Control Plane Resilience
+# Kubernetes and Cluster Federation Control Plane Resilience
 
 ## Long Term Design and Current Status
 
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ Documentation for other releases can be found at
 
 Some amount of confusion exists around how we currently, and in future
 want to ensure resilience of the Kubernetes (and by implication
-Ubernetes) control plane.  This document is an attempt to capture that
+Kubernetes Cluster Federation) control plane.  This document is an attempt to capture that
 definitively. It covers areas including self-healing, high
 availability, bootstrapping and recovery.  Most of the information in
 this document already exists in the form of github comments,

docs/design/federated-services.md

@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Documentation for other releases can be found at
 
 <!-- END MUNGE: UNVERSIONED_WARNING -->
 
-# Kubernetes Cluster Federation (a.k.a. "Ubernetes")
+# Kubernetes Cluster Federation (previously nicknamed "Ubernetes")
 
 ## Cross-cluster Load Balancing and Service Discovery
 
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ Documentation for other releases can be found at
 
 A Kubernetes application configuration (e.g. for a Pod, Replication
 Controller, Service etc) should be able to be successfully deployed
-into any Kubernetes Cluster or Ubernetes Federation of Clusters,
+into any Kubernetes Cluster or Federation of Clusters,
 without modification. More specifically, a typical configuration
 should work correctly (although possibly not optimally) across any of
 the following environments:
@@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ environments. More specifically, for example:
 
 ## Component Cloud Services
 
-Ubernetes cross-cluster load balancing is built on top of the following:
+Cross-cluster Federated load balancing is built on top of the following:
 
 1. [GCE Global L7 Load Balancers](https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/load-balancing/http/global-forwarding-rules)
    provide single, static global IP addresses which load balance and
@@ -194,10 +194,11 @@ Ubernetes cross-cluster load balancing is built on top of the following:
 A generic wrapper around cloud-provided L4 and L7 load balancing services, and
 roll-your-own load balancers run in pods, e.g. HA Proxy.
 
-## Ubernetes API
+## Cluster Federation API
 
-The Ubernetes API for load balancing should be compatible with the equivalent
+The Cluster Federation API for load balancing should be compatible with the equivalent
-Kubernetes API, to ease porting of clients between Ubernetes and Kubernetes.
+Kubernetes API, to ease porting of clients between Kubernetes and
+federations of Kubernetes clusters.
 Further details below.
 
 ## Common Client Behavior
@@ -250,13 +251,13 @@ multiple) fixed server IP(s). Nothing else matters.
 
 ### General Control Plane Architecture
 
-Each cluster hosts one or more Ubernetes master components (Ubernetes API
+Each cluster hosts one or more Cluster Federation master components (Federation API
 servers, controller managers with leader election, and etcd quorum members. This
 is documented in more detail in a separate design doc:
-[Kubernetes/Ubernetes Control Plane Resilience](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jGcUVg9HDqQZdcgcFYlWMXXdZsplDdY6w3ZGJbU7lAw/edit#).
+[Kubernetes and Cluster Federation Control Plane Resilience](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jGcUVg9HDqQZdcgcFYlWMXXdZsplDdY6w3ZGJbU7lAw/edit#).
 
 In the description below, assume that 'n' clusters, named 'cluster-1'...
-'cluster-n' have been registered against an Ubernetes Federation "federation-1",
+'cluster-n' have been registered against a Cluster Federation "federation-1",
 each with their own set of Kubernetes API endpoints,so,
 "[http://endpoint-1.cluster-1](http://endpoint-1.cluster-1),
 [http://endpoint-2.cluster-1](http://endpoint-2.cluster-1)
@@ -264,13 +265,13 @@ each with their own set of Kubernetes API endpoints,so,
 
 ### Federated Services
 
-Ubernetes Services are pretty straight-forward.  They're comprised of multiple
+Federated Services are pretty straight-forward.  They're comprised of multiple
 equivalent underlying Kubernetes Services, each with their own external
 endpoint, and a load balancing mechanism across them. Let's work through how
 exactly that works in practice.
 
-Our user creates the following Ubernetes Service (against an Ubernetes API
+Our user creates the following Federated Service (against a Federation
-endpoint):
+API endpoint):
 
     $ kubectl create -f my-service.yaml --context="federation-1"
 
@@ -296,7 +297,7 @@ where service.yaml contains the following:
         run: my-service
       type: LoadBalancer
 
-Ubernetes in turn creates one equivalent service (identical config to the above)
+The Cluster Federation control system in turn creates one equivalent service (identical config to the above)
 in each of the underlying Kubernetes clusters, each of which results in
 something like this:
 
@@ -338,7 +339,7 @@ something like this:
 Similar services are created in `cluster-2` and `cluster-3`, each of which are
 allocated their own `spec.clusterIP`, and `status.loadBalancer.ingress.ip`.
 
-In Ubernetes `federation-1`, the resulting federated service looks as follows:
+In the Cluster Federation `federation-1`, the resulting federated service looks as follows:
 
     $ kubectl get -o yaml --context="federation-1" service my-service
 
@@ -382,7 +383,7 @@ Note that the federated service:
 1. has a federation-wide load balancer hostname
 
 In addition to the set of underlying Kubernetes services (one per cluster)
-described above, Ubernetes has also created a DNS name (e.g. on
+described above, the Cluster Federation control system has also created a DNS name (e.g. on
 [Google Cloud DNS](https://cloud.google.com/dns) or
 [AWS Route 53](https://aws.amazon.com/route53/), depending on configuration)
 which provides load balancing across all of those services. For example, in a
@@ -397,7 +398,8 @@ Each of the above IP addresses (which are just the external load balancer
 ingress IP's of each cluster service) is of course load balanced across the pods
 comprising the service in each cluster.
 
-In a more sophisticated configuration (e.g. on GCE or GKE), Ubernetes
+In a more sophisticated configuration (e.g. on GCE or GKE), the Cluster
+Federation control system
 automatically creates a
 [GCE Global L7 Load Balancer](https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/load-balancing/http/global-forwarding-rules)
 which exposes a single, globally load-balanced IP:
@@ -405,7 +407,7 @@ which exposes a single, globally load-balanced IP:
     $ dig +noall +answer my-service.my-namespace.my-federation.my-domain.com
     my-service.my-namespace.my-federation.my-domain.com 180 IN	A 107.194.17.44
 
-Optionally, Ubernetes also configures the local DNS servers (SkyDNS)
+Optionally, the Cluster Federation control system also configures the local DNS servers (SkyDNS)
 in each Kubernetes cluster to preferentially return the local
 clusterIP for the service in that cluster, with other clusters'
 external service IP's (or a global load-balanced IP) also configured
@@ -416,7 +418,7 @@ for failover purposes:
     my-service.my-namespace.my-federation.my-domain.com 180 IN	A 104.197.74.77
     my-service.my-namespace.my-federation.my-domain.com 180 IN	A 104.197.38.157
 
-If Ubernetes Global Service Health Checking is enabled, multiple service health
+If Cluster Federation Global Service Health Checking is enabled, multiple service health
 checkers running across the federated clusters collaborate to monitor the health
 of the service endpoints, and automatically remove unhealthy endpoints from the
 DNS record (e.g. a majority quorum is required to vote a service endpoint
@@ -460,7 +462,7 @@ where `my-service-rc.yaml` contains the following:
             - containerPort: 2380
               protocol: TCP
 
-Ubernetes in turn creates one equivalent replication controller
+The Cluster Federation control system in turn creates one equivalent replication controller
 (identical config to the above, except for the replica count) in each
 of the underlying Kubernetes clusters, each of which results in
 something like this:
@@ -510,8 +512,8 @@ entire cluster failures, various approaches are possible, including:
       replicas in its cluster in response to the additional traffic
       diverted from the failed cluster. This saves resources and is relatively
       simple, but there is some delay in the autoscaling.
-3. **federated replica migration**, where the Ubernetes Federation
+3. **federated replica migration**, where the Cluster Federation
-   Control Plane detects the cluster failure and automatically
+   control system detects the cluster failure and automatically
    increases the replica count in the remainaing clusters to make up
    for the lost replicas in the failed cluster. This does not seem to
    offer any benefits relative to pod autoscaling above, and is
@@ -523,23 +525,24 @@ entire cluster failures, various approaches are possible, including:
 The implementation approach and architecture is very similar to Kubernetes, so
 if you're familiar with how Kubernetes works, none of what follows will be
 surprising. One additional design driver not present in Kubernetes is that
-Ubernetes aims to be resilient to individual cluster and availability zone
+the Cluster Federation control system aims to be resilient to individual cluster and availability zone
 failures. So the control plane spans multiple clusters. More specifically:
 
-+ Ubernetes runs it's own distinct set of API servers (typically one
++ Cluster Federation runs it's own distinct set of API servers (typically one
    or more per underlying Kubernetes cluster).  These are completely
    distinct from the Kubernetes API servers for each of the underlying
    clusters.
-+  Ubernetes runs it's own distinct quorum-based metadata store (etcd,
++  Cluster Federation runs it's own distinct quorum-based metadata store (etcd,
    by default). Approximately 1 quorum member runs in each underlying
    cluster ("approximately" because we aim for an odd number of quorum
    members, and typically don't want more than 5 quorum members, even
    if we have a larger number of federated clusters, so 2 clusters->3
    quorum members, 3->3, 4->3, 5->5, 6->5, 7->5 etc).
 
-Cluster Controllers in Ubernetes watch against the Ubernetes API server/etcd
+Cluster Controllers in the Federation control system watch against the
+Federation API server/etcd
 state, and apply changes to the underlying kubernetes clusters accordingly. They
-also have the anti-entropy mechanism for reconciling ubernetes "desired desired"
+also have the anti-entropy mechanism for reconciling Cluster Federation "desired desired"
 state against kubernetes "actual desired" state.
 
 

docs/design/federation-phase-1.md

@@ -320,8 +320,8 @@ Below is the state transition diagram.
 
 ## Replication Controller
 
-A global workload submitted to control plane is represented as an
+A global workload submitted to control plane is represented as a
-Ubernetes replication controller. When a replication controller
+ replication controller in the Cluster Federation control plane. When a replication controller
 is submitted to control plane, clients need a way to express its
 requirements or preferences on clusters. Depending on different use
 cases it may be complex. For example:
@@ -377,11 +377,11 @@ some implicit scheduling restrictions. For example it defines
 “nodeSelector” which can only be satisfied on some particular
 clusters. How to handle this will be addressed after phase one.
 
-## Ubernetes Services
+## Federated Services
 
-The Service API object exposed by Ubernetes is similar to service
+The Service API object exposed by the Cluster Federation is similar to service
 objects on Kubernetes. It defines the access to a group of pods. The
-Ubernetes service controller will create corresponding Kubernetes
+federation service controller will create corresponding Kubernetes
 service objects on underlying clusters. These are detailed in a
 separate design document: [Federated Services](federated-services.md).
 
@@ -389,13 +389,13 @@ separate design document: [Federated Services](federated-services.md).
 
 In phase one we only support scheduling replication controllers. Pod
 scheduling will be supported in later phase. This is primarily in
-order to keep the Ubernetes API compatible with the Kubernetes API.
+order to keep the Cluster Federation API compatible with the Kubernetes API.
 
 ## ACTIVITY FLOWS
 
 ## Scheduling
 
-The below diagram shows how workloads are scheduled on the Ubernetes control\
+The below diagram shows how workloads are scheduled on the Cluster Federation control\
 plane:
 
 1. A replication controller is created by the client.
@@ -419,20 +419,20 @@ distribution policies. The scheduling rule is basically:
 There is a potential race condition here. Say at time _T1_ the control
 plane learns there are _m_ available resources in a K8S cluster. As
 the cluster is working independently it still accepts workload
-requests from other K8S clients or even another Ubernetes control
+requests from other K8S clients or even another Cluster Federation control
-plane. The Ubernetes scheduling decision is based on this data of
+plane. The Cluster Federation scheduling decision is based on this data of
 available resources. However when the actual RC creation happens to
 the cluster at time _T2_, the cluster may don’t have enough resources
 at that time. We will address this problem in later phases with some
 proposed solutions like resource reservation mechanisms.
 
-![Ubernetes Scheduling](ubernetes-scheduling.png)
+![Federated Scheduling](ubernetes-scheduling.png)
 
 ## Service Discovery
 
 This part has been included in the section “Federated Service” of
 document
-“[Ubernetes Cross-cluster Load Balancing and Service Discovery Requirements and System Design](federated-services.md))”.
+“[Federated Cross-cluster Load Balancing and Service Discovery Requirements and System Design](federated-services.md))”.
 Please refer to that document for details.
 
 

docs/design/podaffinity.md

@@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ scheduler to not put more than one pod from S in the same zone, and thus by
 definition it will not put more than one pod from S on the same node, assuming
 each node is in one zone. This rule is more useful as PreferredDuringScheduling
 anti-affinity, e.g. one might expect it to be common in
-[Ubernetes](../../docs/proposals/federation.md) clusters.)
+[Cluster Federation](../../docs/proposals/federation.md) clusters.)
 
 * **Don't co-locate pods of this service with pods from service "evilService"**:
 `{LabelSelector: selector that matches evilService's pods, TopologyKey: "node"}`

docs/proposals/federation-lite.md

@@ -34,25 +34,25 @@ Documentation for other releases can be found at
 
 # Kubernetes Multi-AZ Clusters
 
-## (a.k.a. "Ubernetes-Lite")
+## (previously nicknamed "Ubernetes-Lite")
 
 ## Introduction
 
-Full Ubernetes will offer sophisticated federation between multiple kuberentes
+Full Cluster Federation will offer sophisticated federation between multiple kuberentes
 clusters, offering true high-availability, multiple provider support &
 cloud-bursting, multiple region support etc.  However, many users have
 expressed a desire for a "reasonably" high-available cluster, that runs in
 multiple zones on GCE or availability zones in AWS, and can tolerate the failure
 of a single zone without the complexity of running multiple clusters.
 
-Ubernetes-Lite aims to deliver exactly that functionality: to run a single
+Multi-AZ Clusters aim to deliver exactly that functionality: to run a single
 Kubernetes cluster in multiple zones.  It will attempt to make reasonable
 scheduling decisions, in particular so that a replication controller's pods are
 spread across zones, and it will try to be aware of constraints - for example
 that a volume cannot be mounted on a node in a different zone.
 
-Ubernetes-Lite is deliberately limited in scope; for many advanced functions
+Multi-AZ Clusters are deliberately limited in scope; for many advanced functions
-the answer will be "use Ubernetes (full)".  For example, multiple-region
+the answer will be "use full Cluster Federation".  For example, multiple-region
 support is not in scope.  Routing affinity (e.g. so that a webserver will
 prefer to talk to a backend service in the same zone) is similarly not in
 scope.
@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ zones (in the same region).  For both clouds, the behaviour of the native cloud
 load-balancer is reasonable in the face of failures (indeed, this is why clouds
 provide load-balancing as a primitve).
 
-For Ubernetes-Lite we will therefore simply rely on the native cloud provider
+For multi-AZ clusters we will therefore simply rely on the native cloud provider
 load balancer behaviour, and we do not anticipate substantial code changes.
 
 One notable shortcoming here is that load-balanced traffic still goes through
@@ -130,8 +130,8 @@ kube-proxy controlled routing, and kube-proxy does not (currently) favor
 targeting a pod running on the same instance or even the same zone.  This will
 likely produce a lot of unnecessary cross-zone traffic (which is likely slower
 and more expensive).  This might be sufficiently low-hanging fruit that we
-choose to address it in kube-proxy / Ubernetes-Lite, but this can be addressed
+choose to address it in kube-proxy / multi-AZ clusters, but this can be addressed
-after the initial Ubernetes-Lite implementation.
+after the initial implementation.
 
 
 ## Implementation
@@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ region-wide, meaning that a single call will find instances and volumes in all
 zones.  In addition, instance ids and volume ids are unique per-region (and
 hence also per-zone).  I believe they are actually globally unique, but I do
 not know if this is guaranteed; in any case we only need global uniqueness if
-we are to span regions, which will not be supported by Ubernetes-Lite (to do
+we are to span regions, which will not be supported by multi-AZ clusters (to do
-that correctly requires an Ubernetes-Full type approach).
+that correctly requires a full Cluster Federation type approach).
 
 ## GCE Specific Considerations
 
@@ -197,20 +197,20 @@ combine results from calls in all relevant zones.
 A further complexity is that GCE volume names are scoped per-zone, not
 per-region.  Thus it is permitted to have two volumes both named `myvolume` in
 two different GCE zones. (Instance names are currently unique per-region, and
-thus are not a problem for Ubernetes-Lite).
+thus are not a problem for multi-AZ clusters).
 
-The volume scoping leads to a (small) behavioural change for Ubernetes-Lite on
+The volume scoping leads to a (small) behavioural change for multi-AZ clusters on
 GCE.  If you had two volumes both named `myvolume` in two different GCE zones,
 this would not be ambiguous when Kubernetes is operating only in a single zone.
-But, if Ubernetes-Lite is operating in multiple zones, `myvolume` is no longer
+But, when operating a cluster across multiple zones, `myvolume` is no longer
 sufficient to specify a volume uniquely.  Worse, the fact that a volume happens
 to be unambigious at a particular time is no guarantee that it will continue to
 be unambigious in future, because a volume with the same name could
 subsequently be created in a second zone.  While perhaps unlikely in practice,
-we cannot automatically enable Ubernetes-Lite for GCE users if this then causes
+we cannot automatically enable multi-AZ clusters for GCE users if this then causes
 volume mounts to stop working.
 
-This suggests that (at least on GCE), Ubernetes-Lite must be optional (i.e.
+This suggests that (at least on GCE), multi-AZ clusters must be optional (i.e.
 there must be a feature-flag).  It may be that we can make this feature
 semi-automatic in future, by detecting whether nodes are running in multiple
 zones, but it seems likely that kube-up could instead simply set this flag.
@@ -218,14 +218,14 @@ zones, but it seems likely that kube-up could instead simply set this flag.
 For the initial implementation, creating volumes with identical names will
 yield undefined results.  Later, we may add some way to specify the zone for a
 volume (and possibly require that volumes have their zone specified when
-running with Ubernetes-Lite).  We could add a new `zone` field to the
+running in multi-AZ cluster mode).  We could add a new `zone` field to the
 PersistentVolume type for GCE PD volumes, or we could use a DNS-style dotted
 name for the volume name (<name>.<zone>)
 
 Initially therefore, the GCE changes will be to:
 
 1. change kube-up to support creation of a cluster in multiple zones
-1. pass a flag enabling Ubernetes-Lite with kube-up
+1. pass a flag enabling multi-AZ clusters with kube-up
 1. change the kuberentes cloud provider to iterate through relevant zones when resolving items
 1. tag GCE PD volumes with the appropriate zone information
 

docs/proposals/federation.md

@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ Documentation for other releases can be found at
 
 # Kubernetes Cluster Federation
 
-## (a.k.a. "Ubernetes")
+## (previously nicknamed "Ubernetes")
 
 ## Requirements Analysis and Product Proposal
 
@@ -413,7 +413,7 @@ detail to be added here, but feel free to shoot down the basic DNS
 idea in the mean time.  In addition, some applications rely on private
 networking between clusters for security (e.g. AWS VPC or more
 generally VPN).  It should not be necessary to forsake this in
-order to use Ubernetes, for example by being forced to use public
+order to use Cluster Federation, for example by being forced to use public
 connectivity between clusters.
 
 ## Cross-cluster Scheduling
@@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ prefers the Decoupled Hierarchical model for the reasons stated below).
     here, as each underlying Kubernetes cluster can be scaled
     completely independently w.r.t. scheduling, node state management,
     monitoring, network connectivity etc. It is even potentially
-    feasible to stack "Ubernetes" federated clusters (i.e. create
+    feasible to stack federations of clusters (i.e. create
     federations of federations) should scalability of the independent
     Federation Control Plane become an issue (although the author does
     not envision this being a problem worth solving in the short
@@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ prefers the Decoupled Hierarchical model for the reasons stated below).
 
 ![image](federation-high-level-arch.png)
 
-## Ubernetes API
+## Cluster Federation API
 
 It is proposed that this look a lot like the existing Kubernetes API
 but be explicitly multi-cluster.
@@ -603,7 +603,8 @@ but be explicitly multi-cluster.
 + Clusters become first class objects, which can be registered,
    listed, described, deregistered etc via the API.
 + Compute resources can be explicitly requested in specific clusters,
-   or automatically scheduled to the "best" cluster by Ubernetes (by a
+   or automatically scheduled to the "best" cluster by the Cluster
+   Federation control system (by a
    pluggable Policy Engine).
 + There is a federated equivalent of a replication controller type (or
    perhaps a [deployment](deployment.md)),
@@ -627,14 +628,15 @@ Controllers and related Services accordingly).
 This should ideally be delegated to some external auth system, shared
 by the underlying clusters, to avoid duplication and inconsistency.
 Either that, or we end up with multilevel auth.  Local readonly
-eventually consistent auth slaves in each cluster and in Ubernetes
+eventually consistent auth slaves in each cluster and in the Cluster
+Federation control system
 could potentially cache auth, to mitigate an SPOF auth system.
 
 ## Data consistency, failure and availability characteristics
 
-The services comprising the Ubernetes Control Plane) have to run
+The services comprising the Cluster Federation control plane) have to run
    somewhere.  Several options exist here:
-* For high availability Ubernetes deployments, these
+* For high availability Cluster Federation deployments, these
    services may run in either:
   * a dedicated Kubernetes cluster, not co-located in the same
 	 availability zone with any of the federated clusters (for fault
@@ -672,7 +674,7 @@ does the zookeeper config look like for N=3 across 3 AZs -- and how
 does each replica find the other replicas and how do clients find
 their primary zookeeper replica? And now how do I do a shared, highly
 available redis database?  Use a few common specific use cases like
-this to flesh out the detailed API and semantics of Ubernetes.
+this to flesh out the detailed API and semantics of Cluster Federation.
 
 
 <!-- BEGIN MUNGE: GENERATED_ANALYTICS -->

docs/proposals/resource-metrics-api.md

@@ -79,10 +79,11 @@ The design of the pipeline for collecting application level metrics should
 be revisited and it's not clear whether application level metrics should be
 available in API server so the use case initially won't be supported.
 
-#### Ubernetes
+#### Cluster Federation
 
-Ubernetes might want to consider cluster-level usage (in addition to cluster-level request)
+The Cluster Federation control system might want to consider cluster-level usage (in addition to cluster-level request)
-of running pods when choosing where to schedule new pods. Although Ubernetes is still in design,
+of running pods when choosing where to schedule new pods. Although
+Cluster Federation is still in design,
 we expect the metrics API described here to be sufficient. Cluster-level usage can be
 obtained by summing over usage of all nodes in the cluster.
 

pkg/cloudprovider/providers/aws/aws.go

@@ -1174,8 +1174,8 @@ func newAWSDisk(aws *Cloud, name string) (*awsDisk, error) {
 	// The original idea of the URL-style name was to put the AZ into the
 	// host, so we could find the AZ immediately from the name without
 	// querying the API.  But it turns out we don't actually need it for
-	// Ubernetes-Lite, as we put the AZ into the labels on the PV instead.
+	// multi-AZ clusters, as we put the AZ into the labels on the PV instead.
-	// However, if in future we want to support Ubernetes-Lite
+	// However, if in future we want to support multi-AZ cluster
 	// volume-awareness without using PersistentVolumes, we likely will
 	// want the AZ in the host.
 

pkg/cloudprovider/providers/gce/gce.go

@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ type GCECloud struct {
 	projectID                string
 	region                   string
 	localZone                string   // The zone in which we are running
-	managedZones             []string // List of zones we are spanning (for Ubernetes-Lite, primarily when running on master)
+	managedZones             []string // List of zones we are spanning (for multi-AZ clusters, primarily when running on master)
 	networkURL               string
 	nodeTags                 []string // List of tags to use on firewall rules for load balancers
 	nodeInstancePrefix       string   // If non-"", an advisory prefix for all nodes in the cluster

test/e2e/ubernetes_lite.go

@@ -32,8 +32,8 @@ import (
 	"k8s.io/kubernetes/test/e2e/framework"
 )
 
-var _ = framework.KubeDescribe("Ubernetes Lite", func() {
+var _ = framework.KubeDescribe("Multi-AZ Clusters", func() {
-	f := framework.NewDefaultFramework("ubernetes-lite")
+	f := framework.NewDefaultFramework("multi-az")
 	var zoneCount int
 	var err error
 	image := "gcr.io/google_containers/serve_hostname:v1.4"