mirror of https://github.com/kubernetes/kops.git
Update networking.md
"Kubernetes appears 12 times in main text of this doc, except links, 9 in capital,3 in lower case. It's better to be same.
This commit is contained in:
parent
278d52d244
commit
70b554a5cb
|
@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Kubernetes Operations (kops) currently supports 4 networking modes:
|
Kubernetes Operations (kops) currently supports 4 networking modes:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
* `kubenet` kubernetes native networking via a CNI plugin. This is the default.
|
* `kubenet` Kubernetes native networking via a CNI plugin. This is the default.
|
||||||
* `cni` Container Network Interface(CNI) style networking, often installed via a Daemonset.
|
* `cni` Container Network Interface(CNI) style networking, often installed via a Daemonset.
|
||||||
* `classic` kubernetes native networking, done in-process.
|
* `classic` Kubernetes native networking, done in-process.
|
||||||
* `external` networking is done via a Daemonset. This is used in some custom implementations.
|
* `external` networking is done via a Daemonset. This is used in some custom implementations.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### kops Default Networking
|
### kops Default Networking
|
||||||
|
@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ One important limitation when using `kubenet` networking is that an AWS routing
|
||||||
50 entries, which sets a limit of 50 nodes per cluster. AWS support will sometimes raise the limit to 100,
|
50 entries, which sets a limit of 50 nodes per cluster. AWS support will sometimes raise the limit to 100,
|
||||||
but their documentation notes that routing tables over 50 may take a performance hit.
|
but their documentation notes that routing tables over 50 may take a performance hit.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Because k8s modifies the AWS routing table, this means that realistically kubernetes needs to own the
|
Because k8s modifies the AWS routing table, this means that realistically Kubernetes needs to own the
|
||||||
routing table, and thus it requires its own subnet. It is theoretically possible to share a routing table
|
routing table, and thus it requires its own subnet. It is theoretically possible to share a routing table
|
||||||
with other infrastructure (but not a second cluster!), but this is not really recommended. Certain
|
with other infrastructure (but not a second cluster!), but this is not really recommended. Certain
|
||||||
`cni` networking solutions claim to address these problems.
|
`cni` networking solutions claim to address these problems.
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue