On 11/26/19 10:20 PM, Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk) wrote: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 06:47:09PM +0000, Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk) wrote: > > Ok, I guess I will work around by using input and output chain types, even though it will raise some brows in k8s networking community. > > @Sergei, thanks for reaching out about this topic. I'm using k8s a lot lately and would be interested in knowing more about what you are trying to do with kubernetes and nftables. In any case, if the somebody in kubernetes is planning to introduce nft for kube-proxy or other component, I would suggest the generated ruleset is validated here to really benefit from nftables. Is this what you are doing, right? Recently I had the chance to attend a talk by @Laura (in CC) about the iptables ruleset generated by docker and kube-proxy. Such rulesets are the opposite of something meant to scale and perform well. Then people compare such rulesets with other networking setups... and unfair compare. Worth mentioning at this point this PoC too: https://github.com/zevenet/kube-nftlb Trying to mimic 1:1 what iptables was doing is a mistake from my point of view. I believe you are aware of this already :-) > > Keeping both target address and port in a single map for *NAT statements > is not possible AFAIK. @Phil, I think it is possible! examples in the wiki: https://wiki.nftables.org/wiki-nftables/index.php/Multiple_NATs_using_nftables_maps It would be something like: % nft add rule nat prerouting dnat \ tcp dport map { 1000 : 1.1.1.1, 2000 : 2.2.2.2, 3000 : 3.3.3.3} \ : tcp dport map { 1000 : 1234, 2000 : 2345, 3000 : 3456 } > > If I'm not mistaken, you might be able to hook up a vmap together with > the numgen expression above like so: > > | numgen random mod 0x2 vmap { \ > | 0x0: jump KUBE-SEP-FS3FUULGZPVD4VYB, \ > | 0x1: jump KUBE-SEP-MMFZROQSLQ3DKOQA } > > Pure speculation, though. :) > This works indeed. Just added the example to the wiki: https://wiki.nftables.org/wiki-nftables/index.php/Load_balancing#Round_Robin
