> > What do others think ? Igor maybe you have a particular opinion on > this one ? Baptiste, anything from the dynamic use cases you're aware > of ? > > Hi Willy,
I did some backlog and yes the use case around "external LB to multiple kubernetes clusters" is "real" (it's even a common use case). Now, I may miss some information to fully understand the current limitations. such type of rewrite should happen at the Ingress Controller layer, from my point of view. Something confuses me in the patch is that we use the configured server name (and not the fqdn) and so, all servers must have a different name. This prevent us from sending the same name to different servers in the backend. I don't know if that is a valid case for later or not. About the impact onto the dynamic changes of the servers in HAProxy, I would yes, we want this to be dynamic. But this imply the ability to change the server name. An easy solution would to enforce using the fqdn, since it's a parameter which makes more sense, same fqdn can be used for multiple servers, and fqdn can be updated using the CLI. (and fqdn can be set despite DNS resolution is not used). Baptiste
