Replies: 1 comment
-
This hasn't gotten much attention, we've already released RC1 with |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
In GEP-1619, we introduced a new policy for extending Service and other backends with Session Persistence configuration, with the goal of expanding that to include other concepts such as LB algorithm, weak session affinity, locality, etc. In today's review session with SIG-Network TLs, @thockin raised the question of if the "LB" in the current "BackendLBPolicy" name was consistent with other terminology in Gateway API, or if it should be BackendLoadBalancerPolicy or BackendLoadBalancingPolicy. That led to this discussion to explore this question a bit further.
Rationale for BackendLBPolicy:
Rationale for BackendLoadBalancerPolicy:
spec.type: LoadBalancer
spec.loadBalancerSourceRanges
spec.loadBalancerIP
status.LoadBalancer
Rationale for BackendLoadBalancingPolicy:
Note: In the poll below, I'm going to include both
BackendLoadBalancingPolicy
andBackendLoadBalancerPolicy
, but will consider the sum of those results when comparing withBackendLBPolicy
.1 vote ·
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions