implementation is not matching the cwnp spec
mwennrich opened this issue · 5 comments
CRD describes spec.egress.port as numerical or named port
( https://github.com/metal-stack/firewall-controller/blob/master/config/crd/bases/metal-stack.io_clusterwidenetworkpolicies.yaml#L65-L72 ) while in validator only int ports are supported
(
firewall-controller/api/v1/clusterwidenetworkpolicy_types.go
Lines 128 to 133 in 714a5bf
@mwennrich If i'm correct, egress
and ingress
fields specify IPs(or subnets) outside of cluster, from which traffic is allowed. Does it even makes sense to allow to specify named port? Probably a better solution would be to replace NetworkPolicyPort
fields with custom port field that would be always int
.
egress is for communication with outside endpoints, ingress for communication with inside endpoints.
@majst01 Yep, i got that) What i meant is that, both for egress
and ingress
rules we specify addresses outside of cluster, so named ports don't even make sense for that case. So, for cleanliness, it's probably better to introduce our custom structure for ports. That would be backwards compatible with NetworkPolicyPort
(except that it would only allow int type for ports).
Maybe i misunderstood this. Comment to ports
field says:
List of ports which should be made accessible on the cluster for this rule
So, does it mean that ports
field lists ports of services in cluster?
So at least description must be adopted