++image
This commit is contained in:
parent
4a6bebe069
commit
617db5a79e
2 changed files with 27 additions and 0 deletions
BIN
assets/u/image/k8s-v6-v4-dns.png
Normal file
BIN
assets/u/image/k8s-v6-v4-dns.png
Normal file
Binary file not shown.
After Width: | Height: | Size: 88 KiB |
|
@ -151,6 +151,33 @@ Keep-Alive: timeout=5
|
|||
(attention, this is a test service and might not be running when you
|
||||
read this article at a later time)
|
||||
|
||||
## IPv6 vs. IPv4
|
||||
|
||||
Could we have achived the same with IPv4? The answere here is "maybe":
|
||||
If the kubernetes service is reachable from globally reachable
|
||||
nameservers via IPv4, then the answer is yes. This could be done via
|
||||
public IPv4 addresses in the kubernetes cluster, via tunnels, VPNs,
|
||||
etc.
|
||||
|
||||
However, generally speaking, the DNS service of a
|
||||
kubernetes cluster running on RFC1918 IP addresses, is probably not
|
||||
reachable from globally reachable DNS servers by default.
|
||||
|
||||
For IPv6 the case is a bit different: we are using globally reachable
|
||||
IPv6 addresses in our k8s clusters, so they can potentially be
|
||||
reachable without the need of any tunnel or whatsoever. Firewalling
|
||||
and network policies can obviously prevent access, but if the IP
|
||||
addresses are properly routed, they will be accessible from the public
|
||||
Internet.
|
||||
|
||||
And this makes things much easier for DNS servers, which are also
|
||||
having IPv6 connectivity.
|
||||
|
||||
The following pictures shows the practical difference between the two
|
||||
approaches:
|
||||
|
||||
![](/u/image/k8s-v6-v4-dns.png)
|
||||
|
||||
## More of this
|
||||
|
||||
We are discussing
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue