Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: Blueprint to demonstrate installation of multiple nginx ingress controllers for internal and public traffic split #1734

Merged
merged 26 commits into from
Aug 17, 2023

Conversation

RobertNorthard
Copy link
Contributor

Description

This example demonstrates how to provision an Amazon EKS cluster and configure two nginx ingress controllers; one to expose applications publicly and the other to expose applications internally. Today, it is not always clear how to install duplicates of an EKS Blueprint addon to meet this use case. This blueprint also demonstrates how to leverage the new Security Group support for Network Load Balancers feature.

Motivation and Context

See above.

How was this change tested?

  • Yes, I have tested the PR using my local account setup (Provide any test evidence report under Additional Notes)
  • Yes, I have updated the docs for this feature
  • Yes, I ran pre-commit run -a with this PR

Additional Notes

N/A

@RobertNorthard RobertNorthard requested a review from a team as a code owner August 16, 2023 18:40
@RobertNorthard RobertNorthard changed the title feat: blueprint to demonstrate installation of multiple nginx ingress controllers for internal and public traffic split feat: Blueprint to demonstrate installation of multiple nginx ingress controllers for internal and public traffic split Aug 16, 2023
@RobertNorthard RobertNorthard temporarily deployed to EKS Blueprints Test August 16, 2023 18:52 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
@RobertNorthard RobertNorthard temporarily deployed to EKS Blueprints Test August 16, 2023 19:12 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
Copy link
Contributor

@askulkarni2 askulkarni2 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@RobertNorthard thanks so much for this pattern! Really cool. Just some minor suggestions to change nginx ingress to ingress-nginx because those do have different meanings :)

docs/blueprints/private-public-ingress.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
examples/private-public-ingress/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
examples/private-public-ingress/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
examples/private-public-ingress/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
examples/private-public-ingress/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
examples/private-public-ingress/main.tf Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
examples/private-public-ingress/main.tf Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
examples/private-public-ingress/main.tf Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
examples/private-public-ingress/main.tf Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
examples/private-public-ingress/main.tf Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@askulkarni2 askulkarni2 temporarily deployed to EKS Blueprints Test August 16, 2023 20:30 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
@RobertNorthard RobertNorthard temporarily deployed to EKS Blueprints Test August 16, 2023 20:39 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
Copy link
Contributor

@askulkarni2 askulkarni2 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

@askulkarni2 askulkarni2 merged commit fa5d17d into aws-ia:main Aug 17, 2023
@vietcgi
Copy link

vietcgi commented Aug 18, 2023

Looks like the security group doesn't get associated with the LB

@askulkarni2
Copy link
Contributor

Looks like the security group doesn't get associated with the LB

Can you please open an issue with what you are seeing?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants