Additional PoolMember properties in ConfigMap not preserved

[sectoreleven]

Additional PoolMember properties in ConfigMap not preserved

[trinaths]

Created [CONTCNTR-4563] for internal tracking.

[lavanya-f5]

@sectoreleven please test with dev build quay.io/f5networks/k8s-bigip-ctlr-devel:b6b0556b023000bdc4a7cc9a48a975f16ebc3bb2 and provide feedback

[sectoreleven]

@lavanya-f5 I have tested and the additional properties are persisting as expected, for the most part.

However, the behavior of the enable property in the AS3 Pool_Member type is unexpected (and this may be a CIS or AS3 thing in general - please enlighten me) but if I set enable to false, then the BIG-IP pool simply is not populated, when I would instead expect it to be populated with members in either a Disabled or Forced Offline state.

[lavanya-f5]

@sectoreleven It's more of AS3 thing, even without CIS enable as false in declaration results in same behavior from AS3. Moreover, i think you can use adminState property on pool member to disable/force-offline pool member.

[sectoreleven]

@lavanya-f5 that property does work as expected, thanks.

One last question - and we can take this to another topic as needed - does CIS have any concept of using different selectors to populate different Pool_Members in a single pool, versus just targeting the entire Pool? Our use of adminState would potentially be to sustain a current pattern where both blue and green service members are in a single pool and turned up or down instead of having discrete pools, for example.

[lavanya-f5]

@sectoreleven CIS currently only supports service level selectors. AB kind of deployment is supported with nextgen route and vs CRD, for more info https://github.com/F5Networks/k8s-bigip-ctlr/blob/master/docs/config_examples/next-gen-routes/routes/sample-route-ab.yaml
https://github.com/F5Networks/k8s-bigip-ctlr/blob/master/docs/config_examples/customResource/VirtualServerWithTLSProfile/virtual-with-alternatebackends/virtual-with-ab.yaml

But AB requirement is handled with different pools based on service not on the pool members.I would suggest create new RFE with detailed requirements for pool member selector scenario so that i can discuss with team.

[sectoreleven]

@lavanya-f5 @trinaths - we have returned to this topic and submitted RFE #3374 as requested. We would welcome your review. Thanks!

[trinaths]

@lavanya-f5 @trinaths - we have returned to this topic and submitted RFE #3374 as requested. We would welcome your review. Thanks!

Closing this RFE to consider #3374