You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We currently generate a unique id which represents the cluster and we use the "kube-system" ns UID for this.
It was required when we supported ACM that we had a consistent unique id per cluster and using this namespace id was determined to be the best way to do that. I'm not really sure if this is really required any longer though since ownership of records(in the provider) now comes down to the gateway/listener/dnsrecord combination and really is nothing to do with clusters (You could have many on the same cluster contributing to the same record set).
Is this needed still, if not remove it?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
If we happen to have similar names of the Gateway/listener/host... across multiple clusters won't it cause a conflict in the provider? Different controllers will attempt to create identical records
If we happen to have similar names of the Gateway/listener/host... across multiple clusters won't it cause a conflict in the provider? Different controllers will attempt to create identical records
Don't see how, you can't create a Gateway with the same name in the same namespace, and the DNSRecord UUID is used for the owner id in the provider. We/I do this for testing locally.
We currently generate a unique id which represents the cluster and we use the "kube-system" ns UID for this.
It was required when we supported ACM that we had a consistent unique id per cluster and using this namespace id was determined to be the best way to do that. I'm not really sure if this is really required any longer though since ownership of records(in the provider) now comes down to the gateway/listener/dnsrecord combination and really is nothing to do with clusters (You could have many on the same cluster contributing to the same record set).
Is this needed still, if not remove it?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: