Istio ingress vs ingress-gce
flexlee opened this issue · comments
Is Istio ingress different from GKE(GCE) ingress? It seems Istio ingress ignores other annotations like kubernetes.io/ingress.global.static-ip-name. Can it be replaced with the default GKE ingress? Thanks.
Yes, Istio ingress is different than GCLB ingress. AFAIK it can't be replaced with the GCLB ingress (yet!), I think there is work being done so the GCLB will work with Istio out of the box, but I'm not sure.
Thanks for the answer. In your demo, can the Istio ingress be replaced by GCLB? It doesn't seem to be doing anythig special other than routing traffic to frontend service. I'm trying the GCLB for my fork but it seems I'm hitting the GKE service quota - the make delete-cluster doesn't seem to clean up all the artifacts.
It actually does do something special, it adds the trace headers to each request and it allows the retry logic to work for the frontend. You could potentially put the Istio ingress behind the GCLB ingress, but I haven't tried that.
make delete-clusters should delete everything, the fact that it is not is an issue. Do you have a list of what it leaves behind?
@thesandlord Interesting. I will try putting GCLB in front of istio-ingress.
never mind with delete-clusters. I think I commented out the delete istio-ingress and svc statements at one point and recreated the clusters. So there was some ingress and services instances left dangling. I ended up manually deleting them in GC console. Thanks for the help