API Evolution for VPC and Networking Topologies

[randomvariable]

/kind feature

Describe the solution you'd like
There are differing options on how to run Kubernetes clusters in AWS, these include:

• IPv6 vs IPv4
• NAT gateways for internet connectivity, vs. DirectConnect vs. internal only
• A plethora of CNIs
• Multiple load balancer implementation for Kubernetes services

How does a user figure out what one to use, and how best can we enable them?

Related issues include:
#931, #1208 , #1158 , #1062 , #1727

Anything else you would like to add:
[Miscellaneous information that will assist in solving the issue.]

A proposal for this should include a evolutionary roadmap as far as the API goes. What are the most immediate concerns that can be addressed as additions to the v1alpha3 API, and what should be best considered as a breaking API changes.

[randomvariable]

@fabriziopandini if you have any thoughts on this, would be appreciated.

[fabriziopandini]

@randomvariable I have something similar in the radar, but I dubt we can workout details during this iteration
rif kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api#1729

• Prototype interactive mode for allowing users to set "on-the-fly" the variables to be injected in the yaml for providers components or providers templates
• Prototype a pluggable template system (vs supporting only variables substitution)

In order to ^^^, it should be defined a way for clusterctl to interact with each provider while creating the cluster template, because the providers are the owner of the knowledge of what can be configured or not, and considering this should be accepted by each provider, I assume this requires a CAEP

[fejta-bot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta.
/lifecycle stale

[detiber]

/lifecycle frozen

[richardcase]

Also relates to #1643 and #1323

[randomvariable]

@richardcase Would be useful to get the requirements for EKS down. I would have thought we can make EKS work with the existing topology.

[richardcase]

@randomvariable - i'll start documenting the requirments. The current default topology doesn't work as the 2 subnets it creates (1 public & 1 private) are in a single az and EKS requires subnets in at least 2 azs.