Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on May 14, 2019. It is now read-only.

discovery: bad discovery endpoint Unable to GET token #64

Open
mikesimos opened this issue Apr 18, 2019 · 5 comments
Open

discovery: bad discovery endpoint Unable to GET token #64

mikesimos opened this issue Apr 18, 2019 · 5 comments

Comments

@mikesimos
Copy link

I 'm getting discovery: bad discovery endpoint errors on two existing discovery endpoints.
A get request to the discovery url yields: 400 (Bad Request) Unable to GET token
However, I was able to create new discovery endpoints that work as expected.
Any known issues?

@colonha
Copy link

colonha commented Apr 23, 2019

I'm reporting here same problem. Cannot access discovery.io and new machines are not able to join the cluster.

@Flygsand
Copy link

Same issue here right now. Did anything change recently?

@colonha
Copy link

colonha commented May 13, 2019

Looks like CoreOS (Redhat) updated the API to a newest version removing some features (Like DELETE) and remove some (Not sure if all) exiting keys.

Since I was using these removed features I decided to build a private etcd discovery service by myself.

@lucab
Copy link

lucab commented May 13, 2019

/cc @philips I think this may be related to the current ongoing work for https://github.com/etcd-io/discovery.etcd.io.

@philips
Copy link
Contributor

philips commented May 13, 2019

The discovery service did change. See https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/etcd-dev/q-pN4PiGY_o

Unfortunately we had to delete all existing tokens in the migration. However, discovery tokens should only be used for initial boot strapping and were periodically deleted in the past. So, I am surprised to hear there are issues.

The new discovery.etcd.io code base is in a PR here etcd-io/etcd#10627 and if you are having issues please file a detailed issue on https://github.com/etcd-io/discovery.etcd.io.

@colonha In particular I would be interested to hear what API calls you were using exactly. My intention was not to break the existing API but I ported it to a new backend so it is possible something not covered by a test broke.

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

No branches or pull requests

5 participants