Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 35884, 37305, 37369, 37429, 35679)
fix mixleading warning message regarding kube-proxy nodeIP initializa…
The current warning message implies that the operator should restart kube-proxy with some flag related to node IP which can be very misleading.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Bug fix. Incoming UDP packets not reach newly deployed services
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
Incoming UDP packets not reach newly deployed services when old connection's state in conntrack is not cleared. When a packet arrives, it will not go through NAT table again, because it is not "the first" packet. The PR fix the issue
**Which issue this PR fixes**
Fixes#31983
xref https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/8795
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/proxy
cc @thockin
In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.
If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------
We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.
Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).
At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.
Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.
TLDR:
-----
As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:
1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.
2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.
3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed. Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.
4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Change stickyMaxAge from seconds to minutes, fixes issue #35677
**What this PR does / why we need it**: Increases the service sessionAfinity time from 180 seconds to 180 minutes for proxy mode iptables which was a bug introduced in a refactor.
**Which issue this PR fixes**: fixes#35677
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
**Release note**:
``` release-note
Fixed wrong service sessionAffinity stickiness time from 180 sec to 180 minutes in proxy mode iptables.
```
Since there is no test for the sessionAffinity feature at the moment I wanted to create one but I don't know how.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Add kubelet --network-plugin-mtu flag for MTU selection
* Add network-plugin-mtu option which lets us pass down a MTU to a network provider (currently processed by kubenet)
* Add a test, and thus make sysctl testable
bridge-nf-call-iptables appears to only be relevant when the containers are
attached to a Linux bridge, which is usually the case with default Kubernetes
setups, docker, and flannel. That ensures that the container traffic is
actually subject to the iptables rules since it traverses a Linux bridge
and bridged traffic is only subject to iptables when bridge-nf-call-iptables=1.
But with other networking solutions (like openshift-sdn) that don't use Linux
bridges, bridge-nf-call-iptables may not be not relevant, because iptables is
invoked at other points not involving a Linux bridge.
The decision to set bridge-nf-call-iptables should be influenced by networking
plugins, so push the responsiblity out to them. If no network plugin is
specified, fall back to the existing bridge-nf-call-iptables=1 behavior.
This allows us to use the MARK-MASQ chain as a subroutine, rather than encoding
the mark in many places. Having a KUBE-POSTROUTING chain means we can flush
and rebuild it atomically. This makes followon work to change the mark
significantly easier.
Klaus Ma