Fix IPAM doc and enhance validation #3009
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3009 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 60.57% 59.68% -0.89%
==========================================
Files 292 292
Lines 24708 24708
==========================================
- Hits 14966 14748 -218
- Misses 8104 8336 +232
+ Partials 1638 1624 -14
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
| @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ controller. Default is false. | |||
|
|
|||
| - `clusterCIDRs`: CIDR Ranges for Pods in cluster. String array containing single | |||
| CIDR range, or multiple ranges. The CIDRs could be either IPv4 or IPv6. Example | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should mention only one CIDR of an IP family can be used, and we should validate it in controller Options.Validate().
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And in this case, do you think we should consider two parameters for v4 and v6 respectively? Or we are thinking about future extension?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done.
I think the parameters are following kube-controller-manager style where a single parameter is used to take CIDRs for two IP families. And yes, it's possible to extend it to support multiple CIDRs per IP family.
| @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ controller. Default is false. | |||
|
|
|||
| - `clusterCIDRs`: CIDR Ranges for Pods in cluster. String array containing single | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we change "Ranges" to "ranges"?
8d4de9a to
40721dc
Compare
* Multiple CIDRs for an IP family is not supported by NodeIPAM * nodeCIDRMaskSizeIPv6 defaults to 64, use a larger CIDR as example * AntreaIPAM is introduced in v1.4 Signed-off-by: Quan Tian <qtian@vmware.com>
|
/test-all |
|
@jianjuns could you approve again? I resolved merge conflicts |
Signed-off-by: Quan Tian qtian@vmware.com