-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[WIP] : Azure Load Balancer with separated resource #6467
Conversation
f593b56
to
d8489da
Compare
This implementats the azure load balancer in several resources: - azurerm_load_balancer - azurerm_load_balancer_probe - azurerm_load_balancer_backend_pool - azurerm_load_balancer_rule The frontend IP is implemented as part of the top level load balancer and thus there can only be 1 frontend IP with this implementation. This creates parity with other clouds.
any idea when this would be looked at ? |
Would these resources allow a configuration like this one? #6429 (comment) |
@stack72 and I have now started working on this and will see it through to completion - WIP is at #9199, and we will update that pull request as we go. Thanks for all the work so far, @buzztroll! |
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 have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further. |
This patch shows what an implementation of the azure load balancer looks like with the resources separated. Frontend IP, probe, and rule have all been broken out into separate resources thus making 4 resources needed total with the load balancer itself.
Note that doing this causes some potentially strange events. As an example we cannot delete all of the frontend IPs from the load balancer or azure will send an error. If the user is trying to change the frontend ip set this will likely result in a delete then an add. It will be difficult to get that right.
See #6429 #6335 for alternative approaches. #6335 could be reworked to be simpler but still have nested resources.
@jen20 @phinze any thoughts?