google_compute_router_nat docs advise configuring router BGP, which might be unnecessary

[craigfurman]

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
• If an issue is assigned to the "modular-magician" user, it is either in the process of being autogenerated, or is planned to be autogenerated soon. If an issue is assigned to a user, that user is claiming responsibility for the issue. If an issue is assigned to "hashibot", a community member has claimed the issue already.

Terraform Version

Terraform v0.11.14
provider.google v2.13.0

Affected Resource(s)

• google_compute_router_nat

Potential documentation issue

The docs for the google_compute_router_nat resource (https://github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-google/blob/master/website/docs/r/compute_router_nat.html.markdown) contain examples in which a google_compute_router is configured with a bgp block.

The Cloud NAT docs state:

Cloud NAT uses Cloud Router only to group NAT configuration information (control plane). Cloud NAT does not direct a Cloud Router to use BGP or to add routes. NAT traffic does not pass through a Cloud Router (data plane).

I was curious about this so I provisioned cloud NAT and a router with no bgp configuration, and Cloud NAT worked fine. Is it possible that using bgp block in the examples leads to confusion since no user-visible routes are created in the Cloud NAT use case? It's entirely possible that I've misunderstood all of this, but I wanted to open this issue out of curiosity.

[emilymye]

I think the real explaination here is that it was copied from some other example for a cloud router - seems like we should remove it because it's causing confusion :)

In general, I'd say that as the developers of TPG, we aren't the most familiar with each product/field, so while we do some specific use-case examples, often we're just documenting the structure of fields that we just added to the resources rather than documenting a recommended usecase.

[craigfurman]

Thanks for opening that PR @emilymye! I wasn't sure enough to do that initially, so I figured I'd start with this issue.

[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. If you feel I made an error 🤖 🙉 , please reach out to my human friends 👉 hashibot-feedback@hashicorp.com. Thanks!