-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 240
add support for stateless rules #1044
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
Can you please elaborate why:
|
|
|
+1 on the value of this. We've had a few situations working with customers where they used the TF modules and then had to redo the NSGs to make them stateless due to running into performance issues. |
| ) : {} | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| bastion_stateless_rules = merge( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Bastion and operator are used for admin/troubleshooting purposes. I don't see the need to make their rules stateless.
| protocol = local.icmpv6_protocol, source = local.worker_nsg_id, source_type = local.rule_type_nsg, | ||
| }, | ||
| } : {}, | ||
| local.operator_nsg_enabled ? { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
as above, operator is for troubleshooting. do we really need this rule to be stateless? maybe for the bastion and operator, just create them separately?
hyder
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let me know what you think about the bastion and operator rules for stateless and then I'll test.
Add option to create NSGs with stateless rules.