Skip to content

Support CA Certs from other namespaces in BackendTLSPolicy #3787

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

Open
arkodg opened this issue May 12, 2025 · 4 comments
Open

Support CA Certs from other namespaces in BackendTLSPolicy #3787

arkodg opened this issue May 12, 2025 · 4 comments
Labels
kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature.

Comments

@arkodg
Copy link
Contributor

arkodg commented May 12, 2025

What would you like to be added:

Move the type for CACertificateRefs in BackendTLSPolicy from LocalObjectReference to ObjectReference so a namespace field can be include to define a CA Cert Reference that lives in another namespace (not the backend service namespace)

Why this is needed:

  • Allows a team to define a ConfigMap containing the CA Cert ( to validate the backends) thats common, once instead of 1 per backend per namespace
    • to reduce the number of resources that need to be created by the team
    • to reduce the amount of resources that need to be reconciled by the control plane (these are fairly large resources)
    • the workaround is to be creative with the WellKnownCACertificates option, which I'm hoping we can avoid
@arkodg arkodg added the kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. label May 12, 2025
@youngnick
Copy link
Contributor

If we do this, that will also require a ReferenceGrant, as per the usual cross-namespace reference requirements.

@arkodg
Copy link
Contributor Author

arkodg commented May 12, 2025

agree @youngnick, it still results in a de duplication of the ConfigMap, which starts to impact at high scale (hundreds and thoursands of services)

@howardjohn
Copy link
Contributor

what about using ClusterTrustBundle instead? it's now beta so may be viable?

not opposed to this as well possibly though

@robscott
Copy link
Member

+1 on looking into ClusterTrustBundle as an option here. ConfigMap was a less than ideal solution as we waited for ClusterTrustBundle to stabilize. Now that it's reached beta, it's likely worth considering here.

cc @ahmedtd

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants