I'm wondering if anyone can help with my issue, here's the setup:
We have 2 separate kubernetes clusters in GKE, running on v1.17, and they each sit in a separate project
We have set up VPC peering between the two projects
On cluster 1, we have 'service1' which is exposed by an internal HTTPS load balancer, we don't want this to be public
On cluster 2, we intend on being able to access 'service1' via the internal load balancer, and it should do this over the VPC peering connection between the two projects
Here's the issue:
When I'm connected via SSH on a GKE node on cluster 2, I can successfully run a curl request to access https://service1.domain.com running on cluster 1, and get the expected response, so traffic is definitely routing from cluster 2 > cluster 1. However, when I'm running the same curl command from a POD, running on a GKE node, the same curl request times out.
I have run as much troubleshooting as I can including telnet, traceroute etc and I'm really stuck why this might be. If anyone can shed light on the difference here that would be great.
I did wonder whether pod networking is somehow forwarding traffic over the clusters public IP rather than over the VPC peering connection.
So it seems you're not using a "VPC-native" cluster and what you need is "IP masquerading".
From this document:
"A GKE cluster uses IP masquerading so that destinations outside of the cluster only receive packets from node IP addresses instead of Pod IP addresses. This is useful in environments that expect to only receive packets from node IP addresses."
You can use ip-masq-agent or k8s-custom-iptables. After this, it will work since it will be like you're making a call from node, not inside of pod.
As mentioned in one of the answers IP aliases (VPC-native) should work out of the box. If using a route based GKE cluster rather than VPC-native you would need to use custom routes.
As per this document
By default, VPC Network Peering with GKE is supported when used with
IP aliases. If you don't use IP aliases, you can export custom routes
so that GKE containers are reachable from peered networks.
This is also explained in this document
If you have GKE clusters without VPC native addressing, you might have
multiple static routes to direct traffic to VM instances that are
hosting your containers. You can export these static routes so that
the containers are reachable from peered networks.
The problem your facing seems similar to the one mentioned in this SO question, perhaps your pods are using IPs outside of the VPC range and for that reason cannot access the peered VPC?
UPDATE: In Google cloud, I tried to access the service from another cluster which had VPC native networking enabled, which I believe allows pods to use the VPC routing and possibly the internal IPs.
Problem solved :-)
Related
I have a Kubernetes cluster with multiple nodes in two different subnets (x and y). I have an IPsec VPN tunnel setup between my x subnet and an external network. Now my problem is that the pods that get scheduled in the nodes on the y subnet can't send requests to the external network because they're in nodes not covered by the VPN tunnel. Creating another VPN to cover the y subnet isn't possible right now. Is there a way in k8s to force all pods' traffic to go through a single source? Or any clean solution even if outside of k8s?
Posting this as a community wiki, feel free to edit and expand.
There is no built-in functionality in kubernetes that can do it. However there are two available options which can help to achieve the required setup:
Istio
If services are well known then it's possible to use istio egress gateway. We are interested in this use case:
Another use case is a cluster where the application nodes don’t have
public IPs, so the in-mesh services that run on them cannot access the
Internet. Defining an egress gateway, directing all the egress traffic
through it, and allocating public IPs to the egress gateway nodes
allows the application nodes to access external services in a
controlled way.
Antrea egress
There's another solution which can be used - antrea egress. Use cases are:
You may be interested in using this capability if any of the following apply:
A consistent IP address is desired when specific Pods connect to
services outside of the cluster, for source tracing in audit logs, or
for filtering by source IP in external firewall, etc.
You want to force outgoing external connections to leave the cluster
via certain Nodes, for security controls, or due to network topology
restrictions.
Consider a microservice X which is containerized and deployed in a kubernetes cluster. X communicates with a Payment Gateway PG. However, the payment gateway requires a static IP for services contacting it as it maintains a whitelist of IP addresses which are authorized to access the payment gateway. One way for X to contact PG is through a third party proxy server like QuotaGuard which will provide a static IP address to service X which can be whitelisted by the Payment Gateway.
However, is there an inbuilt mechanism in kubernetes which can enable a service deployed in a kube-cluster to obtain a static IP address?
there's no mechanism in Kubernetes for this yet.
other possible solutions:
if nodes of the cluster are in a private network behind a NAT then just add your network's default gateway to the PG's whitelist.
if whitelist can accept a cidr apart from single IPs (like 86.34.0.0/24 for example) then add your cluster's network cidr to the whitelist
If every node of the cluster has a public IP and you can't add a cidr to the whitelist then it gets more complicated:
a naive way would be to add ever node's IP to the whitelist, but it doesn't scale above tiny clusters few just few nodes.
if you have access to administrating your network, then even though nodes have pubic IPs, you can setup a NAT for the network anyway that targets only packets with PG's IP as a destination.
if you don't have administrative access to the network, then another way is to allocate a machine with a static IP somewhere and make it act as a proxy using iptables NAT similarly like above again. This introduces a single point of failure though. In order to make it highly available, you could deploy it on a kubernetes cluster again with few (2-3) replicas (this can be the same cluster where X is running: see below). The replicas instead of using their node's IP to communicate with PG would share a VIP using keepalived that would be added to PG's whitelist. (you can have a look at easy-keepalived and either try to use it directly or learn from it how it does things). This requires high privileges on the cluster: you need be able to grant to pods of your proxy NET_ADMIN and NET_RAW capabilities in order for them to be able to add iptables rules and setup a VIP.
update:
While waiting for builds and deployments during last few days, I've polished my old VIP-iptables scripts that I used to use as a replacement for external load-balancers on bare-metal clusters, so now they can be used as well to provide egress VIP as described in the last point of my original answer. You can give them a try: https://github.com/morgwai/kevip
There are two answers to this question: for the pod IP itself, it depends on your CNI plugin. Some allow it with special pod annotations. However most CNI plugins also involve a NAT when talking to the internet so the pod IP being static on the internal network is kind of moot, what you care about is the public IP the connection ends up coming from. So the second answer is "it depends on how your node networking and NAT is set up". This is usually up to the tool you used to deploy Kubernetes (or OpenShift in your case I guess). With Kops it's pretty easy to tweak the VPC routing table.
I have two Kubernetes clusters cluster-a, cluster-b in Google Cloud GCP.
Can i call a service exposed with ambasador in cluster (cluster-a) from a different cluster (cluster-b) in the same GCP project but different VPC's ?
Right now i can call the service by the ambasador service name (when I do it in the same cluster).
I have read about Internal TCP/UDP Load Balancing, but it only works when cluster-a and cluster-b are in the same VPC network and my clusters are in different VPC's.
There is a different approach to accomplish it ?
VPCs on GCP aren't routed to each other by default, so your requests won't be reaching the remote CIDRs. For that, you want to use VPC Network Peering to make each VPC reachable to each other.
Note that firewall rules still apply for both VPCs, so you have to create them in order to establish full communication.
Finally, this will only allow network communication between your VPCs. If you rule out this as the issue and you're still experiencing lack of connectivity, it might be related to your Ambassador configuration, in which case, I'd recommend posting either information about that or create another question for that specifically.
I noticed every node in a cluster has an external IP assigned to it. That seems to be the default behavior of Google Kubernetes Engine.
I thought the nodes in my cluster should be reachable from the local network only (through its virtual IPs), but I could even connect directly to a mongo server running on a pod from my home computer just by connecting to its hosting node (without using a LoadBalancer).
I tried to make Container Engine not to assign external IPs to newly created nodes by changing the cluster instance template settings (changing property "External IP" from "Ephemeral" to "None"). But after I did that GCE was not able to start any pods (Got "Does not have minimum availability" error). The new instances did not even show in the list of nodes in my cluster.
After switching back to the default instance template with external IP everything went fine again. So it seems for some reason Google Kubernetes Engine requires cluster nodes to be public.
Could you explain why is that and whether there is a way to prevent GKE exposing cluster nodes to the Internet? Should I set up a firewall? What rules should I use (since nodes are dynamically created)?
I think Google not allowing private nodes is kind of a security issue... Suppose someone discovers a security hole on a database management system. We'd feel much more comfortable to work on fixing that (applying patches, upgrading versions) if our database nodes are not exposed to the Internet.
GKE recently added a new feature allowing you to create private clusters, which are clusters where nodes do not have public IP addresses.
This is how GKE is designed and there is no way around it that I am aware of. There is no harm in running kubernetes nodes with public IPs, and if these are the IPs used for communication between nodes you can not avoid it.
As for your security concern, if you run that example DB on kubernetes, even if you go for public IP it would not be accessible, as this would be only on the internal pod-to-pod networking, not the nodes them selves.
As described in this article, you can use network tags to identify which GCE VMs or GKE clusters are subject to certain firewall rules and network routes.
For example, if you've created a firewall rule to allow traffic to port 27017, 27018, 27019, which are the default TCP ports used by MongoDB, give the desired instances a tag and then use that tag to apply the firewall rule that allows those ports access to those instances.
Also, it is possible to create GKE cluster with applying the GCE tags on all nodes in the new node pool, so the tags can be used in firewall rules to allow/deny desired/undesired traffic to the nodes. This is described in this article under --tags flag.
Kubernetes Master is running outside your network and it needs to access your nodes. This could the the reason for having public IPs.
When you create your cluster, there are some firewall rules created automatically. These are required by the cluster, and there's e.g. ingress from master and traffic between the cluster nodes.
Network 'default' in GCP has readymade firewall rules in place. These enable all SSH and RDP traffic from internet and enable pinging of your machines. These you can remove without affecting the cluster and your nodes are not visible anymore.
I have a Kubernetes cluster (1.3.2) in the the GKE and I'd like to connect VMs and services from my google project which shares the same network as the cluster.
Is there a way for a VM that's internal to the subnet but not internal to the cluster itself to connect to the service without hitting the external IP?
I know there's a ton of things you can do to unambiguously determine the IP and port of services, such as the ENVs and DNS...but the clusterIP is not reachable outside of the cluster (obviously).
Is there something I'm missing? An important component to this is that this is meant to be a service "public" to the project, such that I don't know which VMs on the project will want to connect to the service (this could rule out loadBalancerSourceRanges). I understand the endpoint which the services actually wraps is the internal IP I can hit, but the only good way to get to that IP is though the Kube API or kubectl, both of which are not prod-ideal ways of hitting my service.
Check out my more thorough answer here, but the most common solution to this is to create bastion routes in your GCP project.
In the simplest form, you can create a single GCE Route to direct all traffic w/ dest_ip in your cluster's service IP range to land on one of your GKE nodes. If that SPOF scares you, you can create several routes pointing to different nodes, and traffic will round-robin between them.
If that management overhead isn't something you want to do going forward, you could write a simple controller in your GKE cluster to watch the Nodes API endpoint, and make sure that you have a live bastion route to at least N nodes at any given time.
GCP internal load balancing was just released as alpha, so in the future, kube-proxy on GCP could be implemented using that, which would eliminate the need for bastion routes to handle internal services.