Document reserved ports #21520
+13
−0
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ | ||
| OpenShift Reserved Ports | ||
| ======================== | ||
|
|
||
| OpenShift reserves all ports on hosts that are reserved by [upstream Kubernetes](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/pkg/master/ports/ports.go) as well as the following host ports: | ||
|
|
||
| | 2379,2380 | masters | [etcd](https://github.com/openshift/installer) | etcd API | | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. nit: Add a space after the comma here to match your "Node Exporter" line below? Also, do you mean to link the installer for "etcd"? I'd have expected a link to https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd#etcd-tcp-ports There was a problem hiding this comment. Yeah, although the installer / mcd controls where that goes. So I was linking to the relevant authority within our space. |
||
| | 6443 | masters |[kube-apiserver](https://github.com/openshift/cluster-kube-apiserver-operator) | Kubernetes API | | ||
| | 9099 | masters | [Cluster Version Operator](https://github.com/openshift/cluster-version-operator) | Metrics | | ||
| | 9100, 9101 | nodes | [Node Exporter](https://github.com/openshift/node_exporter) | Metrics | | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Does "nodes" mean "workers" (a.k.a. "compute", etc.), or does it mean "all machines in the cluster, regardless of role"? There was a problem hiding this comment. All machines in the cluster. This could be more formal (as the mentioned e2e test) |
||
| | 10256 | nodes | [openshift-sdn](https://github.com/openshift/origin) | Metrics | | ||
|
|
||
| By default, within an OpenShift cluster the port range 9000-9999 is accessible from all nodes in the cluster | ||
| for use by metrics scraping and other host level services. That is managed by the cloud security groups. | ||
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we pin this to a specific release? Kubernetes might decide to move that file, or they might decide to add or remove entries. Our implementation will match the state as it stood the last time we looked at that file. With a pinned link, it would be up to the reader to decide whether that still matched whatever was in Kubernetes current master or not (which they could probably do with
git diff ...).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hrm. I'm wondering if we should have an e2e test that enforces this on the cluster (looks at all host network pods or host ports on the cluster and compares it). Then we don't need this doc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@squeed also mentioned having a conformance test for reserved ports.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, I hacked up a conformance test yesterday (after giving up writing a SOCK_DIAG client and just shelling out to
netstat, lol). However, it's not clear where it belongs, since it tests manifests that are supplied by descendant operators.If it's useful, I can add it to openshift/origin.