Docs: Updates to Egress router DNS proxy mode#4910
Conversation
|
@danwinship @bfallonf PTAL |
|
Thanks @pravisankar . @danwinship , any thoughts or should I go ahead and merge? |
|
Updated to 3.8 as per conversation in #4854 |
ncbaratta
added
the
peer-review-needed
openshift-bot
added
the
needs-rebase
|
@bfallonf I have changed the labels and assigned to you. Will also require QE approval. |
pravisankar
force-pushed
the
egress-dns-proxy
branch
from
d7b6522 to
f6a03d8
Compare
openshift-bot
removed
the
needs-rebase
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
size/L
pravisankar
force-pushed
the
egress-dns-proxy
branch
2 times, most recently
from
8d4b06c to
d15e6a7
Compare
|
@openshift/team-documentation @bfallonf @knobunc @danwinship updated, PTAL |
knobunc
left a comment
knobunc
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just want the "why" part, but otherwise it's good.
admin_guide/managing_networking.adoc
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might want to say why, but otherwise looks great.
pravisankar
force-pushed
the
egress-dns-proxy
branch
from
d15e6a7 to
7bdc6ef
Compare
|
Thanks @pravisankar . This is great. I'll merge this and cherrypick to 3.10 (as per info in https://trello.com/c/407uoUFz/495-5-allow-dns-names-for-egress-routers-human-names-egressdemo ) and do a quick followup for some standards fixes. |
|
/cherrypick enterprise-3.10 |
|
@bfallonf: new pull request created: #9111 DetailsIn response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
8 participants
Updated based on feedback on openshift/origin#15409 and #4854