clarify unmentioned constraint port.name equalness (cherry-pick #11680) #11892
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Please provide a description for what this PR is for.
cherry-pick #11680
In our multi cluster mesh, we found that, even we meet the
namespace-sameness
, cross cluster calls to remote cluster through eastwest gateway never happen in some cases. (calls always invoke to primary cluster)After some digging, we found that the
same
kubernetesService
had differentport.name
, and the code that aggregating eds reads the port.name to match endpoint with service.And if we correct the
Service.spec.ports[_].name
to be same as what in primary cluster (literally equal, both name no specified consider equal "" == "" ), cross cluster calls act as expect.So as
namespace-sameness
, the addition constraint should be documented.https://github.com/istio/istio/blob/93e4ec424b52da807228bd7784c59d646ec73733/pilot/pkg/xds/endpoint_builder.go#L240-L242
And to help us figure out who should review this PR, please
put an X in all the areas that this PR affects.