Jaeger-operator: Unable to customize portname on service

[figaw]

When using the Istio service mesh, it's important that services have specific port names, at least their prefixes. See: https://istio.io/docs/setup/additional-setup/requirements/

Currently the query-service has its port named query which means Istio won't route traffic.

We're currently patching this with a small script:

## Install jaeger-operator and "jaeger-instance"
until kubectl get svc jaeger-instance-query -n observability 2> /dev/null
do
    echo "jaeger-instance-query not ready yet, sleeping 1 second"
    sleep 1
done

kubectl patch svc jaeger-instance-query --type='json' --patch='[{"op": "replace", "path": "/spec/ports/0/name", "value":"http"}]' -n observability

But this of course feels a bit hacky, we'd rather like to be able to customize this in the Jaeger-resource we're provisioning.

Calling the ports http-query would also be fine, but that wouldn't help people that want mTLS and need the portname to be https-query.

[jpkrohling]

but that wouldn't help people that want mTLS and need the portname to be https-query

Do you have more info about this specific part? I thought http would have been enough to have it working.

While I think we should at least name the ports with the protocol in the first part of the name (http-), it's worth noting that this shouldn't be required "soon", perhaps as soon as Istio 1.4, as it will probably ship with a more intelligent protocol detection: https://istio.io/news/2019/announcing-1.3/#intelligent-protocol-detection-experimental

[figaw]

I don't have more info about mTLS right now, and I'd be happy to settle for a "solve one problem at a time"-way of working, and get back to you when (if?) we have an actual need for the HTTPS part :)

• Parameterizing the name would solve the problem generally.
• Upgrading to the next version of Istio would solve the problem for HTTP.
• Just calling the port http or http-query would solve the problem for HTTP, for "all" versions of Istio.

[jpkrohling]

Prefixing all the ports would be my preference. It's simple enough, yet effective.

[jpkrohling]

Looks like this has been addressed by #909. I'm closing, unless there's a need for prefixing other ports as well.