This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 29, 2023. It is now read-only.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Private cluster #22
Private cluster #22
Changes from 4 commits
5489a6d
27da04b
fd06269
2b8b1a8
05d959d
e504a87
163a420
c9af3a5
16ddf1b
cf71d5f
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
any point parameterizing this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Was thinking that also. The other examples use hardcoded values, so I went with that. Maybe parameterize with those values as defaults?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay understood, wondering if we should do this now or ship as is. If we change, we should change all examples
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd be tempted to create
pre_launch
branch and PR we all work on. Some of the items includeThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rileykarson Is this still valid? I thought
v0.0.1
has everything necessary, or am I missing something?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@yorinasub17 nope, no longer valid. We should use @rileykarson 's module. Another thing on my pre-launch list.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe one day we could include an example for this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe our VPC module has Cloud NAT. Other option could be showcasing running one of Google's containers (
gcloud container images list --project google-containers
). I tested the private cluster withgcr.io/google-containers/nginx
and exposed that with a load balancer.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Checked the module, and the NAT is only for the public subnet.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
gruntwork-io/terraform-google-network#15
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is slightly confusing. E.g
enable_private_endpoint
signals to me that this only controls the private endpoint, treating the public endpoint separately.Should this be
disable_public_endpoint
instead?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think you're right... using
disable_public_endpoint
feels more intuitive.Reason for naming it like this is because
gcloud
uses--enable-private-endpoint
. On the other hand the web console uses "Access master using its external IP address" -checkbox. 😄There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
And
terraform
provider usesenable_private_endpoint
😄There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Makes sense. I am a bit on the fence about deviating from the google APIs, but I do feel that
disable_public_endpoint
is the better name...There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice 👍