scottk/kubernetes
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/optim-enterprises-bv/kubernetes.git synced 2025-11-04 04:08:16 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Beef up services doc a little

Browse Source 
Convert examples to v1beta3, flesh out some details, mention L7.
This commit is contained in:
Tim Hockin
2015-05-06 09:04:27 -07:00
parent 302de065f2
commit bfde99ac4b
1 changed files with 98 additions and 51 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

149
docs/services.md
View File

@@ -40,24 +40,32 @@ port 9376 and carry a label "app=MyApp".
```json
{
"kind": "Service",
"apiVersion": "v1beta1",
"id": "myapp",
"selector": {
"app": "MyApp"
},
"containerPort": 9376,
"protocol": "TCP",
"port": 80
"kind": "Service",
"apiVersion": "v1beta3",
"metadata": {
"name": "my-service"
},
"selector": {
"app": "MyApp"
},
"spec": {
"ports": [
{
"protocol": "TCP",
"port": 80,
"targetPort": 9376
}
]
}
}
```
This specification will create a new `Service` object named "myapp" which
This specification will create a new `Service` object named "my-service" which
targets TCP port 9376 on any `Pod` with the "app=MyApp" label. Every `Service`
is also assigned a virtual IP address (called the "portal IP"), which is used by
the service proxies (see below). The `Service`'s selector will be evaluated
continuously and the results will be posted in an `Endpoints` object also named
"myapp".
"my-service".
### Services without selectors
@@ -73,23 +81,48 @@ abstract any kind of backend. For example:
In any of these scenarios you can define a service without a selector:
```json
"kind": "Service",
"apiVersion": "v1beta1",
"id": "myapp",
"port": 80
{
"kind": "Service",
"apiVersion": "v1beta3",
"metadata": {
"name": "my-service"
},
"spec": {
"ports": [
{
"protocol": "TCP",
"port": 80,
"targetPort": 9376
}
]
}
}
```
Then you can explicitly map the service to a specific endpoint(s):
Then you can manually map the service to a specific endpoint(s):
```json
"kind": "Endpoints",
"apiVersion": "v1beta1",
"id": "myapp",
"endpoints": ["173.194.112.206:80"]
{
"kind": "Endpoints",
"apiVersion": "v1beta3",
"metadata": {
"name": "my-service"
},
"subsets": [
{
"addresses": [
{ "IP": "1.2.3.4" }
],
"ports": [
{ "port": 80 }
]
}
]
}
```
Accessing a `Service` without a selector works the same as if it had selector. The
traffic will be routed to endpoints defined by the user (`173.194.112.206:80` in
Accessing a `Service` without a selector works the same as if it had selector.
The traffic will be routed to endpoints defined by the user (`1.2.3.4:80` in
this example).
## Portals and service proxies
@@ -100,8 +133,9 @@ and `Endpoints` objects. For each `Service` it opens a port (random) on the
local node. Any connections made to that port will be proxied to one of the
corresponding backend `Pods`. Which backend to use is decided based on the
AffinityPolicy of the `Service`. Lastly, it installs iptables rules which
capture traffic to the `Service`'s `Port` on the `Service`'s portal IP and
redirects that traffic to the previously described port.
capture traffic to the `Service`'s `Port` on the `Service`'s portal IP (which
is entirely virtual) and redirects that traffic to the previously described
port.
The net result is that any traffic bound for the `Service` is proxied to an
appropriate backend without the clients knowing anything about Kubernetes or
@@ -112,6 +146,9 @@ appropriate backend without the clients knowing anything about Kubernetes or
By default, the choice of backend is random. Client-IP-based session affinity
can be selected by setting `service.spec.sessionAffinity` to `"ClientIP"`.
As of Kubernetes 1.0, `Service`s are a "layer 3" (TCP/UDP over IP) construct. We do not
yet have a concept of "layer 7" (HTTP) services.
### Why not use round-robin DNS?
A question that pops up every now and then is why we do all this stuff with
@@ -174,19 +211,20 @@ virtual portal IP.
## Headless Services
Users can create headless services by specifying "None" for the PortalIP.
For such services, an IP or DNS is not created and neither are service-specific
environment variables for the pods created. Additionally, the kube proxy does not
handle these services and there is no load balancing or proxying being done by the
platform for them. The endpoints_controller would still create endpoint records in
etcd for such services, which are also made available via the API. These services
also take advantage of any UI, readiness probes, etc. that are applicable for
services in general.
Sometimes you don't need or want a single virtual IP. In this case, you can
create "headless" services by specifying "None" for the PortalIP. For such
services, a virtual IP is not allocated, DNS is not configured (this will be
fixed), and service-specific environment variables for pods are not created.
Additionally, the kube proxy does not handle these services and there is no
load balancing or proxying done by the platform for them. The endpoints
controller will still create endpoint records in the API for such services.
These services also take advantage of any UI, readiness probes, etc. that are
applicable for services in general.
The tradeoff for a developer would be whether to couple to the Kubernetes API or to
a particular discovery system. This API would not preclude the self-registration
approach, however, and adapters for other discovery systems could be built upon this
API, as well.
The tradeoff for a developer would be whether to couple to the Kubernetes API
or to a particular discovery system. Applications can still use a
self-registration pattern and adapters for other discovery systems could be
built upon this API, as well.
## External Services
@@ -195,8 +233,8 @@ Service onto an external (outside of your cluster, maybe public internet) IP
address.
On cloud providers which support external load balancers, this should be as
simple as setting the `createExternalLoadBalancer` flag of the `Service` to
`true`. This sets up a cloud-specific load balancer and populates the
simple as setting the `createExternalLoadBalancer` flag of the `Service` spec
to `true`. This sets up a cloud-specific load balancer and populates the
`publicIPs` field (see below). Traffic from the external load balancer will be
directed at the backend `Pods`, though exactly how that works depends on the
cloud provider.
@@ -209,19 +247,24 @@ through to the backends. You are then responsible for ensuring that traffic to
those IPs gets sent to one or more Kubernetes `Nodes`. As long as the traffic
arrives at a Node, it will be be subject to the iptables rules.
An example situation might be when a `Node` has both internal and an external
network interfaces. If you assign that `Node`'s external IP as a `publicIP`, you
can then aim traffic at the `Service` port on that `Node` and it will be proxied
to the backends.
An common situation is when a `Node` has both internal and an external network
interfaces. If you put that `Node`'s external IP in `publicIPs`, you can
then aim traffic at the `Service` port on that `Node` and it will be proxied to
the backends. If you set all `Node`s' external IPs as `publicIPs` you can then
reach a `Service` through any `Node`, which means you can build your own
load-balancer or even just use DNS round-robin. The downside to this approach
is that all such `Service`s share a port space - only one of them can have port
80, for example.
## Choosing your own PortalIP address
A user can specify their own ```PortalIP``` address as part of a service creation
request. For example, if they already have an existing DNS entry that they wish
to replace, or legacy systems that are configured for a specific IP address and difficult
to re-configure. The ```PortalIP``` address that a user chooses must be a valid IP address
and within the portal net CIDR range that is specified by flag to the API server. If
the PortalIP value is invalid, the apiserver returns a ```422``` HTTP status code to
indicate that the value is invalid.
A user can specify their own `PortalIP` address as part of a service creation
request. For example, if they already have an existing DNS entry that they
wish to replace, or legacy systems that are configured for a specific IP
address and difficult to re-configure. The `PortalIP` address that a user
chooses must be a valid IP address and within the portal net CIDR range that is
specified by flag to the API server. If the PortalIP value is invalid, the
apiserver returns a 422 HTTP status code to indicate that the value is invalid.
## Shortcomings
@@ -232,6 +275,7 @@ portals](https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes/issues/1107) for more
details.
Using the kube-proxy obscures the source-IP of a packet accessing a `Service`.
This makes some kinds of firewalling impossible.
## Future work
@@ -243,11 +287,14 @@ portal will simply transport the packets there.
There's a
[proposal](https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes/issues/3760) to
eliminate userspace proxying in favor of doing it all in iptables. This should
perform better, though is less flexible than arbitrary userspace code.
perform better and fix the source-IP obfuscation, though is less flexible than
arbitrary userspace code.
We hope to make the situation around external load balancers and public IPs
simpler and easier to comprehend.
We intend to have first-class support for L7 (HTTP) `Service`s.
## The gory details of portals
The previous information should be sufficient for many people who just want to
@@ -270,7 +317,7 @@ ensure that no two `Services` can collide. We do that by allocating each
Unlike `Pod` IP addresses, which actually route to a fixed destination,
`Service` IPs are not actually answered by a single host. Instead, we use
`iptables` (packet processing logic in Linux) to define "virtual" IP addresses
`iptables` (packet processing logic in Linux) to define virtual IP addresses
which are transparently redirected as needed. We call the tuple of the
`Service` IP and the `Service` port the `portal`. When clients connect to the
`portal`, their traffic is automatically transported to an appropriate