docs: Add deployment for AWS NLB Proxy.

[HenItzhaki]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• CVE Report (Scanner found CVE and adding report)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Documentation only

Which issue/s this PR fixes

How Has This Been Tested?

Checklist:

• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I've read the CONTRIBUTION guide
• I have added unit and/or e2e tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.
• Added Release Notes.

Does my pull request need a release note?

Any user-visible or operator-visible change qualifies for a release note. This could be a:

• CLI change
• API change
• UI change
• configuration schema change
• behavioral change
• change in non-functional attributes such as efficiency or availability, availability of a new platform
• a warning about a deprecation
• fix of a previous Known Issue
• fix of a vulnerability (CVE)

No release notes are required for changes to the following:

• Tests
• Build infrastructure
• Fixes for unreleased bugs

For more tips on writing good release notes, check out the Release Notes Handbook

PLACE RELEASE NOTES HERE

[k8s-ci-robot]

This issue is currently awaiting triage.

If Ingress contributors determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the triage/accepted label and provide further guidance.

The triage/accepted label can be added by org members by writing /triage accepted in a comment.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @HenItzhaki. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[HenItzhaki]

/ok-to-test

[k8s-ci-robot]

@HenItzhaki: Cannot trigger testing until a trusted user reviews the PR and leaves an /ok-to-test message.

In response to this:

/ok-to-test

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[longwuyuan]

@HenItzhaki thanks for the PR. It is likely that this will help users who terminate TLS on the LB instead of the controller.

But there is no details in the description of the issue and that is not helpful to someone else looking at this. Please help out and create a issue where you describe what the current problem is, with data.

Then you could add details in the description of this PR as to how this specific new deploy.yaml and kustomize file solve that problem. I think highlighting the diff from the "normal" cloud user yaml and comments on TLS termination on provider, specifics, would help a lot.

[longwuyuan]

seems duplicate of #9564

[rikatz]

@longwuyuan should this be closed ?

[longwuyuan]

@HenItzhaki thanks for this contribution.

• Since the project does not have a AWS account, its not easy to verify these docs
• This kind of instructions could be super helpful for the target use-case but hoping that I can engage with you a bit like maybe over a zoom session to verify and record + publish the screencast. Just to assure readers that these steps have een verified before adding to the official docs

[rikatz]

/lgtm
/approve
Thanks

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: HenItzhaki, rikatz

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [rikatz]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[rikatz]

/hold

@longwuyuan can you provide some feedback here? Thanks!

[Gacko]

We'll probably need to revert this for several reasons:

1. The deploy.yaml is generated from the Helm chart using a values.yaml. This is not happening here, so the deploy.yaml would not be updated or even be deleted on the next release.
2. It's relying on controller v1.5.1 because this was the latest version back then in January 2023 when the PR was created.
3. I'd rather point users to using the Helm chart with values snippets instead of adding a deploy.yaml for each and every scenario. There might be a lot more easy to adjust parameters like the namespace or release name making those static deploy.yaml manifests useless.

So in the long run we should rather try to reduce the amount of static files. Also because cloud providers change from time to time. The load balancer type references in the service annotations e.g. has been replaced by the loadBalancerClass field.

[Gacko]

Also this PR is not adding the newly generated file to the docs, so people would only find it by browsing the source code.

[rikatz]

My hold was slower than tide, sorry :/