Kind: Standard way for Kind to communicate about a local registry

[nicks]

Many Kubernetes clusters support a local registry, to make pushing images directly to the cluster fast. But every cluster documents it with manual shell scripts:

• https://kind.sigs.k8s.io/docs/user/local-registry/
• https://microk8s.io/docs/registry-built-in
• https://github.com/rancher/k3d/blob/master/docs/registries.md#using-a-local-registry
• https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.3/registry/accessing-the-registry.html#registry-accessing-directly_accessing-the-registry

Because every cluster is slightly different, this makes it hard for tools to automate this work for users.

The big idea

Clusters should use annotations on the kube-system namespace to document how to configure a registry

Detailed design

I propose 3 new "standard" annotations:

x-k8s.io/registry: the host of the registry (hostname and port), as seen from outside of the cluster
x-k8s.io/registry-from-cluster: the host of the registry (hostname and port), as seen from inside the cluster
x-k8s.io/registry-help: The URL of documentation where users can read more about how to set a registry up.

Tools that would benefit from local registries should read this annotation and display it to the user

What this means for Kind

All Kind clusters would have a registry-help annotation pointing users to https://kind.sigs.k8s.io/docs/user/local-registry/

We'd also update the example script at https://kind.sigs.k8s.io/docs/user/local-registry/ to add the x-k8s.io/registry annotation during setup.

Prior Art

This proposal is based on what we've been recommending to people in Tilt, with a lot of success: https://docs.tilt.dev/choosing_clusters.html#custom-clusters

update 5/4 - changed the proposal to use the kube-system namespace instead of node annotations

[nicks]

I also filed this feature request here https://github.com/rancher/k3d/issues/234 and here https://github.com/ubuntu/microk8s/issues/1173, and would love other ideas on places I should post about this

[BenTheElder]

FWIW x-k8s.io currently is typically used by community projects under something like <project>.x-k8s.io, I think there's guidance about this somewhere but I haven't needed to look in a while.

i'm not sure if there's something this would neatly fall under.

I like the general idea though, if not a standard annotation maybe something like checking for .*/registry-help etc?

[BenTheElder]

sending a poke to cluster-lifecycle, which seems like they might be the appropriate group for this, given that it's sort of a cluster-addon detail.

[neolit123]

this is an interesting topic for the SIG cluster-lifecycle Zoom meeting:
https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/sig-cluster-lifecycle
see: Regular SIG Meeting...

SIG contacts.

and potentially going trough a K8s KEP process if there is interest.

initial take:

• adding host:port or URL links in annotations is still an API contract, so there is potential for an old cluster to now point to an outdated location.
• by "local" are we considering node-local or in the same subnetwork as the cluster nodes?
• if the registry is considered "cluster-wide" then annotating the "kube-system" namespace seems more appropriate even if images are node local. this however means node clients would have to be able to read the namespace, which i don't think is ideal. one the other hand, what happens if one node points to one registry and second node to another, which one is the "cluster" registry?

[cppforlife]

@nicks it's interesting that you picked node annotations to store this data. are you expecting that "cluster registry" may differ per node? (edit: looks like @neolit123 touched on this same question)

i would recommend to make an expectation that if there exists registry configuration it applies to all nodes(== entire cluster). given that, it's worth considering alternative places for storage:

• a configmap in kube-system
• ClusterRegistry CRD and ClusterRegistry CR (at the cluster level)
  
  
  
  • you could have multiple cluster level CRs to represent multiple registries
  
  

[nicks]

@neolit123 thanks for the pointer! is it ok if I just add it to the meeting agenda for tomorrow?

re: some of the specific technical points that @neolit123 and @cppforlife made:

• I really like the suggestion to set it per-namespace! I'll update the proposal at the top of the post

• For our purposes, "local" means any insecure registry that's co-located with the cluster and eligible to be exposed directly to the developer's machine. The term is trying to evoke more how the developer should expect to interact with it than how it's implemented.

• The role of this annotation is to communicate to tools outside Kubernetes the current state, rather than for communicating inside Kubernetes the desired state (the latter is more what I see ConfigMap is for)

• I like the idea that long-term, all these local registry solutions should converge towards a shared ClusterRegistry CR. But I'm not totally sure what that looks like yet, and would want to try building a POC before I proposed anything. This is mostly suggesting a first step towards documenting the solutions that already exist.

[nicks]

oh - and would also love better suggestions on the annotation "hostname"; I also had trouble finding a good recommendation on this

[neolit123]

is it ok if I just add it to the meeting agenda for tomorrow?

sure, please join the mailing list (google group), to be able to edit the document.

[bboreham]

Strikes me that this is similar to what we can find via the ComponentConfig API.

[nicks]

We had a long discussion about this in the sig-cluster-lifecycle meeting today. Thanks @neolit123 for facilitating. The group proposed a few alternative implementations that I want to think on. I'm going to start a KEP in sig-cluster-lifecycle to kick the tires on this proposal

@bboreham I'm reading up on ComponentConfig right now -- ya, I see the resemblance. And the resemblance to the Kind config (https://godoc.org/sigs.k8s.io/kind/pkg/internal/apis/config#Cluster) There's no way to access those from outside the cluster, right?

[BenTheElder]

kubeadm stores it's component config in a configmap which you can access via the kubernetes API

[BenTheElder]

Er and kind's config is modeled after component config but ... without pulling in all the heavy k8s API machinery.

[shuhaowu]

I just found this issue and it is somewhat related to what I'm doing:

My goal is to test a system deployed on kubernetes in KinD. We use GCR and build and upload images to gcr.io in CI. As a result, the system we are deploying are referencing these images via their gcr.io/.... names. Since we are mutating these images, rebuilding them, and testing them in a KinD based environment, it's very cumbersome to start of a CI run, get the images to build, pull it. This is not even mentioning the problems surrounding authorization, where tokens to GCR.io expires frequently.

To solve this problem, when I change any images, I would build and tag it locally with their full name including the gcr.io part. Then I can use kind load docker-image to load the image into KinD. As a result, Kubernetes pods can "pull" these locally built "gcr.io" images. However, this is very slow with a large number of images and larger images. So I introduced a registry via a simple StatefulSet deployed into KinD along with the following patch:

containerdConfigPatches:
  - |-
    [plugins."io.containerd.grpc.v1.cri".registry.mirrors."gcr.io"]
      endpoint = ["http://localhost:31500"]
nodes:
  - role: control-plane
    extraPortMappings:
      - containerPort: 31500 # Docker registry
        hostPort: 31500
        listenAddress: "127.0.0.1"

With this, I can build, tag, and push the images into localhost:31500/... and Kubernetes will correctly pull images named with the gcr.io prefix from localhost:31500. This behaviour works in KinD 0.7.0, but appears to be broken in 0.8.1 as Kubernetes now get stuck at pulling images.

I'm commenting here for two reasons:

1. To see if what I'm doing can make it upstream somehow.
2. Figure out if i should open another issue fixing the regression from 0.7.0 to 0.8.1. I suspect it's the networking changes? but I have no idea what I'm doing.

registry-statefulset.yaml:

apiVersion: v1
kind: Namespace
metadata:
  name: registry
---
apiVersion: v1
kind: Service
metadata:
  name: registry-int
  namespace: registry
  labels:
    app: registry
spec:
  ports:
    - name: registry
      port: 5000
  clusterIP: None
  selector:
    app: registry
---
apiVersion: v1
kind: Service
metadata:
  name: registry-ext
  namespace: registry
  labels:
    app: registry
spec:
  ports:
    - name: registry
      nodePort: 31500
      port: 5000
      targetPort: 5000
  type: NodePort
  selector:
    app: registry
---
apiVersion: apps/v1
kind: StatefulSet
metadata:
  name: registry
  namespace: registry
spec:
  serviceName: registry-int
  selector:
    matchLabels:
      app: registry
  replicas: 1
  template:
    metadata:
      labels:
        app: registry
    spec:
      containers:
        - name: registry
          image: "registry:2"
          ports:
            - containerPort: 5000
          volumeMounts:
            - name: registry-data
              mountPath: /var/lib/registry
  volumeClaimTemplates:
    - metadata:
        name: registry-data
      spec:
        accessModes: ["ReadWriteOnce"]
        resources:
          requests:
            storage: 50Gi

[BenTheElder]

Hi @shuhaowu, this is not related to this issue.
have you considered using the official guide https://kind.sigs.k8s.io/docs/user/local-registry/?
we also intend to ship a first class local registry soon, and there are already tracking issues for this.

[shuhaowu]

Thanks. I'll open a new issue. TThe instructions about local registry runs the registry on the host alongside the KinD cluster, this doesn't quite work with my use case. It's best if the local registry can be built into the KinD cluster and also be an alias of gcr.io.

[shuhaowu]

Issue created here: https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/kind/issues/1580

[nicks]

KEP PR: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/pull/1757
KEP tracking issue: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/pull/1755

[nicks]

@BenTheElder one question that came up on another thread is if it's worth advertising other image-loading methods as part of this proposal. e.g.:

imageLoadCommand: "kind load docker-image $IMAGE_REF"

The answer might be that we're moving away from that, or that it's worth punting to a future KEP, but it's worth considering the question.

[BenTheElder]

I intend to continue to support it since it can do arbitrary tags without re-tagging, but I'm not sure if it should be in the KEP either ...

[BenTheElder]

@nicks one thing that came up ... do people run tilt push/pull inside a pod? (or possibly similar apps?)

in that case you might need a third value like:

• registry from host
• registry from k8s
• registry from a pod talking to the registry
  ...

or we might need to come up with some clever workaround on our end.
I strongly dislike the proxy service hack most seem to be using currently :/

[BenTheElder]

see thread: https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/CEKK1KTN2/p1589903183011600

[nicks]

@BenTheElder I don't think we have any Tilt users that are trying to run Tilt in pod in the same cluster that they're developing in. But I understand what the person is trying to do in that thread and think that's a legit use-case.

I like the distinction you're proposing (i.e., having a separate host for the container runtime vs pods) but I'm not totally sure what we would call it. Have you seen this enough that it's worth folding into the KEP?

[BenTheElder]

This is the first I've seen it with kind and a local registry, but I think building and pushing images from within a cluster is unfortunately pretty common.

Technically many setups will be reachable via the same endpoint both via the container runtime on the nodes and from within a pod or similar, but anything leveraging the runtime mirror config won't be, and that seems fairly common, IIRC k3d does this for example.

[BenTheElder]

I'm not sure what to name these fields either.
at least in the kind case (and k3d I think), the registry is reachable:

• from the host via one endpoint
• via containerd mirror config at a matching endpoint (but actually dialing a different endpoint)
• from the nodes / pods etc. / generally inside the cluster NOT using the node containerd at a different location (the registry container name)

naming the second and third might be difficult to avoid confusion, but they are distinct and I think not totally uncommon.

[nicks]

Ya, I think the most precise way to specify this might be something like

HostFromContainerRuntime - for things that pull images through containerd
HostFromClusterNetwork - for things that push/pull images from inside the cluster

That feels like you have to know a lot about how this is implemented to use them correctly. But I guess the long-term goal of the KEP is to stop exposing these implementation distinctions to users, so maybe that's ok.

[nicks]

yay, thanks for bringing that up, I would have had a major facepalm moment if we had to update it after.

Last call for any major objections or things I overlooked before we merge the initial spec!

https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/pull/1757
https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/c5b6b632811c21ababa9e3565766b2d70614feec/keps/sig-cluster-lifecycle/generic/1755-communicating-a-local-registry/README.md#design-details

[BenTheElder]

Sorry I didn't get back to this yet, dropping a note that googlers are supposed to be out for the weekend now (mental health day + labor day...) I'm going to try to more or less take that time and get back to this Tuesday 😅

[nicks]

Enjoy the long weekend! We're aiming for June 4th to merge the KEP PR, so plenty of time. :blush:

[BenTheElder]

/assign

[BenTheElder]

/priority important-soon

[BenTheElder]

this is in the registry guide but not in anything integrated yet.
it's always something ... right now investigating performance regressions in kubernetes startup. made some improvements but we took a bad hit since kind was started.