Feature Request: Route53 Resolver Rule

[gazoakley]

Community Note

• Please vote on this issue by adding a 👍 reaction to the original issue to help the community and maintainers prioritize this request
• Please do not leave "+1" or "me too" comments, they generate extra noise for issue followers and do not help prioritize the request
• If you are interested in working on this issue or have submitted a pull request, please leave a comment

Description

New or Affected Resource(s)

• aws_route53_resolver_rule

Potential Terraform Configuration

resource "aws_route53_resolver_rule" "example" {
  name                 = "example"
  domain_name          = "example.com"
  resolver_endpoint_id = "..."
  rule_type            = "FORWARD"

  target_ip {
    ip   = "123.45.67.89"
    port = 1234
  }

  tags {
    Foo = "Barr"
  }
}

References

• https://docs.aws.amazon.com/Route53/latest/APIReference/API_route53resolver_CreateResolverRule.html
• https://docs.aws.amazon.com/Route53/latest/APIReference/API_route53resolver_GetResolverRule.html
• https://docs.aws.amazon.com/Route53/latest/APIReference/API_route53resolver_UpdateResolverRule.html
• https://docs.aws.amazon.com/Route53/latest/APIReference/API_route53resolver_DeleteResolverRule.html

[gazoakley]

I'm planning to work on this unless anyone else has already started (also mentioned in #6525)

[nywilken]

The aws_route53_resolver_rule resource has been merged and will release with version 2.2.0 of the Terraform AWS Provider, likely later today.

[bflad]

This has been released in version 2.2.0 of the Terraform AWS provider. Please see the Terraform documentation on provider versioning or reach out if you need any assistance upgrading.

[egarbi]

@gazoakley
I really don't understand why target_ip has been implemented as a block.
This leads to some limitations when you are trying to add different numbers of IPs in a module.
Example, suppose that I need 2 IPs on Testing environment but 4 in Prod. I will need to hack the module as below:

resource "aws_route53_resolver_rule" "double" {
  count                = "${length(split(",", lookup(var.forwarding_rules[0], "ips"))) == 2 ? length(var.forwarding_rules) : 0}"
  domain_name          = "${lookup(var.forwarding_rules[count.index], "domain_name")}"
  name                 = "${lookup(var.forwarding_rules[count.index], "name")}"
  rule_type            = "${lookup(var.forwarding_rules[count.index], "rule_type")}"
  resolver_endpoint_id = "${aws_route53_resolver_endpoint.outbound.id}"

  target_ip {
    ip = "${element(split(",", lookup(var.forwarding_rules[count.index], "ips")),0)}"
  }

  target_ip {
    ip = "${element(split(",", lookup(var.forwarding_rules[count.index], "ips")),1)}"
  }
}

resource "aws_route53_resolver_rule" "quad" {
  count                = "${length(split(",", lookup(var.forwarding_rules[0], "ips"))) == 4 ? length(var.forwarding_rules) : 0}"
  domain_name          = "${lookup(var.forwarding_rules[count.index], "domain_name")}"
  name                 = "${lookup(var.forwarding_rules[count.index], "name")}"
  rule_type            = "${lookup(var.forwarding_rules[count.index], "rule_type")}"
  resolver_endpoint_id = "${aws_route53_resolver_endpoint.outbound.id}"

  target_ip {
    ip = "${element(split(",", lookup(var.forwarding_rules[count.index], "ips")),0)}"
  }

  target_ip {
    ip = "${element(split(",", lookup(var.forwarding_rules[count.index], "ips")),1)}"
  }

  target_ip {
    ip = "${element(split(",", lookup(var.forwarding_rules[count.index], "ips")),2)}"
  }

  target_ip {
    ip = "${element(split(",", lookup(var.forwarding_rules[count.index], "ips")),3)}"
  }
}

so, if you need 2 ips, you pass ips value as a string of 2 element, and if you need 4 you pass 4 elements as string. Ugly.
Also if you look into Cloudformation templates, target_ips (and ports) are passed as a list and an extra port variable is not needed.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSCloudFormation/latest/UserGuide/aws-resource-route53resolver-resolverrule.html#cfn-route53resolver-resolverrule-targetips
Why did you decide to implement this with ip and port variables into blocks?

[ASethi93]

cant we apply count on the target Ip's ? also this module creates the forwarding rule only what if one has to create a sys type

[ghost]

I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.

If you feel this issue should be reopened, we encourage creating a new issue linking back to this one for added context. Thanks!