So that's our current setup (see sam's message): We have namespaces following the convention "serviceName-envName". This gives us quotas and ABAC, but we lose "semantic naming", as in our conf generation needs to pass dev, staging or prod everywhere and services need to hit " https://serviceName-envName/";.
In my mind there are two ways to make this clean: 1. Hierarchical namespaces like Tim suggested. Where top level namespace is env and sub-namespace is service. 2. Or the env namespaces like you suggest. Where the namespace is the env. Service discovery happens in the clean way you you describe, but we'd need to make functionality like access control, quotas and other things work based on labels and selectors within the namespace. We'd probably also need to be more careful about linking configMaps to their deployments via references instead of the "just kill the namespace" approach we take today. #2 feels both practical and right to me at this point, but it'd obviously require some work. On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 10:34 PM, 'David Oppenheimer' via Kubernetes user discussion and Q&A <kubernetes-users@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 7:45 PM, 'John Huffaker' via Kubernetes user > discussion and Q&A <kubernetes-users@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> So our "dev" env would be composed of N-different services foo, bar and >> baz for example. 3 different teams maintain the 3 different services and >> their related deployments. We would like to limit operations like apply, >> delete, exec and logs to only people on those teams to their respective >> services and deployments. the only way we found to get ABAC working in the >> way we wanted in 1.2 was to put each service/deployment in their own >> namespace (+ "-env"). Additionally for each service's deployment we'd like >> to set a quota on how many CPUs/ram they can reserve. As of right now it >> looks like that is per-namespace as well. >> > > Is there some reason you don't want the three services to be in three > different namespaces? If you put them in three different namespaces, you > can do everything you described with RBAC and quota. > > >> >> I've been worried about this conflict between service discovery and >> abac/quota's interpretation of how namespaces should be used for a while. >> >> On May 6, 2017 7:31 PM, "'David Oppenheimer' via Kubernetes user >> discussion and Q&A" <kubernetes-users@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 7:18 PM, 'John Huffaker' via Kubernetes user >>> discussion and Q&A <kubernetes-users@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>> >>>> At this point it's the lack of quotas and abac associated with >>>> selectors instead of namespaces. >>>> >>> >>> Can you say more about what you mean? What are scenarios where you'd >>> like to restrict use of selectors? (and on what objects?) >>> >>> >>>> I haven't looked closely enough at rbac to see if it gives us what we >>>> need within a namespace-per-env setup. >>>> >>>> The other side benefit that we can tool around is that namespace make a >>>> good "packaging" mechanism for deployments and their related >>>> configMaps/secrets. i.e. Want to delete a deployment just delete it's >>>> namespace. >>>> >>>> On May 6, 2017 6:53 PM, "'David Oppenheimer' via Kubernetes user >>>> discussion and Q&A" <kubernetes-users@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Re-reading this thread, I'm wondering why the existing service name >>>> resolution procedure >>>> <https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/services-networking/service/#dns> >>>> that Nikhil mentioned doesn't solve Sam's problem (without the need for >>>> hierarchical namespaces). Use one namespace per environment, and use the >>>> unqualified service name for lookup to find the desired service in the same >>>> environment. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:14 PM, 'Sam Ghods' via Kubernetes user >>>> discussion and Q&A <kubernetes-users@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> We're struggling internally at Box with a question that we were hoping >>>>> the community could help shed some light on. >>>>> >>>>> At Box we have three main environments: development, staging, and >>>>> production. The definition of 'environment' here is primarily a logical >>>>> service discovery domain - what instances of other services should access >>>>> me and what instances of other services should I access? (Some >>>>> configuration can vary as well.) The development environment is a >>>>> collection of instances where changes are pushed first and the most >>>>> frequently changing environment. Staging is where changes go right before >>>>> they're released and where any manual testing is done. Production is the >>>>> set of instances serving customer traffic. >>>>> >>>>> Currently, we have four bare-metal datacenters, one is for >>>>> non-production workloads (let's call it NP), the three other are for >>>>> production workloads (let's call them A, B, C). Each one has a single >>>>> large >>>>> Kubernetes cluster named after the datacenter it's in. Initially, we >>>>> considered equating namespaces to environments, and having the dev and >>>>> staging namespaces in the NP cluster and the production namespace in the >>>>> A, >>>>> B and C clusters. But we could not get good isolation between different >>>>> teams and microservices for authentication, quota management, etc. >>>>> >>>>> So instead, for a service 'foo,' each cluster uses namespaces like >>>>> 'foo-dev', 'foo-staging', and 'foo-production', with the first two >>>>> namespaces only existing in the NP cluster, but the production namespace >>>>> only existing in clusters A, B and C. The foo team only has access to the >>>>> foo namespaces (through ABAC, soon RBAC) and the foo namespaces can have >>>>> quotas put on them to ensure they do not overrun a cluster or environment. >>>>> >>>>> However, we've started to wonder whether colocating multiple >>>>> environments in a single cluster like this is a good idea. The first thing >>>>> that gave us pause was federation and service discovery - as the foo >>>>> service, I'd love to be able to deploy to a cluster, then indicate that I >>>>> want to talk to the 'baz' service, and have it automatically find the baz >>>>> service in my cluster, and fall back to a secondary cluster if it's not >>>>> there. Having multiple environments in a single cluster means every app in >>>>> a cluster needs to not only know that it reaches a 'baz' service, but it >>>>> needs to know to specifically reach out to 'baz-dev|staging|prod' etc., >>>>> which pollutes everyone's configs. This is specifically because there's no >>>>> first class concept for "environment" in Kubernetes at the moment - only >>>>> what we've clobbered into namespaces, configs and service names. >>>>> (Something >>>>> like hierarchical namespaces may be able to help with this.) >>>>> >>>>> The alternative we're considering is to have each cluster contain only >>>>> a single environment. Having one environment per cluster simplifies a lot >>>>> of configuration and object definitions across the board, because there's >>>>> only one axis to worry about (cluster) instead of two (cluster + >>>>> environment). We can know implicitly that everything in a given cluster >>>>> belongs to a specific environment, potentially simplifying configuration >>>>> more broadly. It also feels like it might be a lot more natural of a fit >>>>> to >>>>> Kubernetes' federation plans, but we haven't looked into this in as much >>>>> depth. >>>>> >>>>> But on the flip side, I've always understood Kubernetes' ultimate goal >>>>> to be a lot more like Borg or an AWS availability zone or region, where >>>>> the >>>>> software operates more at an infrastructure layer than the application >>>>> layer, because this dramatically improves hardware utilization and >>>>> efficiency and minimizes the number of clusters to operate, scale, etc. >>>>> >>>>> An extreme alternative we've heard is to actually bootstrap a cluster >>>>> per team, but that feels pretty far from the Kubernetes vision, though we >>>>> might be wrong about that as well. >>>>> >>>>> So, we'd love to hear opinions on not only what's recommended or >>>>> possible today with Kubernetes, but what is the vision - should Kubernetes >>>>> clusters exist at an application/environment layer or at the >>>>> infrastructure >>>>> layer? >>>>> >>>>> Thank you! >>>>> Sam >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Kubernetes user discussion and Q&A" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to kubernetes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> >>>>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-users@googlegroups.com >>>>> . >>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/kubernetes-users. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>>> Google Groups "Kubernetes user discussion and Q&A" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to >>>> pic/kubernetes-users/GPaGOGxCDD8/unsubscribe. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>> kubernetes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-users@googlegroups.com. >>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/kubernetes-users. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Kubernetes user discussion and Q&A" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to kubernetes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-users@googlegroups.com. >>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/kubernetes-users. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>> Google Groups "Kubernetes user discussion and Q&A" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to >>> pic/kubernetes-users/GPaGOGxCDD8/unsubscribe. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>> kubernetes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-users@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/kubernetes-users. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Kubernetes user discussion and Q&A" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to kubernetes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-users@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/kubernetes-users. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Kubernetes user discussion and Q&A" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > topic/kubernetes-users/GPaGOGxCDD8/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > kubernetes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-users@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/kubernetes-users. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes user discussion and Q&A" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-users@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/kubernetes-users. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
