►
From YouTube: Kubernetes - AWS Provider - Meeting 20210820
Description
Recording of the AWS Provider subproject meeting held on 20201211
New release, plan to move to beta CCM, removing calls to IMDS from CCM, discuss https://github.com/kubernetes/cloud-provider-aws/pull/248
A
A
A
A
I
was
had
gone
back
to
working
on
etes
and
I
was
initially
kind
of
just
without
really
thinking
about
it
blocking
on
getting
those
up
and
running
to
get
to
beta,
but
I
don't
know
that
we
really
need.
I
mean,
since
most
of
the
code
you
know,
is
a
mirror
of
what
is
in
tree.
I
don't
know
if
we
need
the
edd
test
up
and
running
before
beta
or
if
we
should
really
just
block
on
ga.
A
For
those
to
me,
it
seems
like
the
initial
sort
of
ad
hoc
testing
that
we've
done
as
we've
been
using.
This
might
be
enough
to
just
call
the
releases
beta
that
we're
doing
and
and
then
we
really
get
the
full
e
e
suite
up
and
running
before.
We
call
it
ga
and
then
so
yeah
any
any
thoughts
on
that,
and
and
what
else
might
we
might
want
to
get
done
before?
We
call
our
releases
beta.
B
B
A
B
A
A
D
A
A
A
A
I
I
know
that
the
external
ccm
has
a
different
code
path
than
what
would
be
called
in
each
cubelet
right
does.
So
I
think
the
question
is:
does
the
you
know
if
it's
just
a
cubelet
code
path,
then
we
definitely
can
remove
it
if
it's
actually
used
there
is.
There
is
also
when
the
the
ccm
initializes.
I
know
that
there's
some
kind
of
a
like
it
initializes
an
object
for
its
own
node.
A
B
Yeah,
I
think
that
makes
a
ton
of
sense.
I
think
you're
right.
I
think
they
used
to
be
separate
methods
and
they
were
combined
in
a
sort
of
awkward
fashion.
I
think,
but
anyway
they
they
should
be
separate
methods
and
the
the
describe
instance
describe
local
instance,
which
uses
the
mediator
service
should
be
a
different
method
from
describe
some
other
instance
in
ideal
code
land.
B
The
I
might
expect
there
might
still
be
some
calls
to
imps
to
retrieve
like
what
region
am
I
in,
for
example,
or
some
things
like
that,
but
I
think
we
can
probably
test
this
by
just
actually
sending
one.
Once
we
have
the
ede
tests,
we
can
just
send
a
pr
or
assuming
the
edtes
run
on
prs.
We
can
send
a
pr
that
just
panics
in
the
code
path
under
question
just
see
what
happens
because
it
shouldn't.
I
agree,
it
shouldn't
be
called
it'd,
be
interesting,
it'd
be
interesting.
D
D
D
A
A
B
B
B
Like
what's
on
that
channel,
but
I
guess
the
that
should
be
where
they
actually
go.
We
could,
let's,
let's
chat
later,
though,
and
figure
out
how
to
actually
get
them
uploading
in
general.
But
yes,
I
I've.
I
have
been
remiss
about
uploading
them
because
I
was
hoping
it
was
going
to
happen
automatically
and
it
did
not.
A
A
D
A
Okay,
so
this
one
was
a
pull
request
that
I
had
been
working
on:
use,
load,
balancer
name
for
classic
elbs.
I
think
somebody
asked
if
they're
still
only
going
to
work
so
yeah
I
had
started.
I
was
just
kind
of
messing
around
to
see
how
it
would
work.
It's
pretty
simple
to
have
an
annotation
that
specifies
a
name.
A
C
A
C
C
C
C
A
Right
and
as
written,
it
leaks
the
elb,
which
is
why
okay
so
like,
I
wasn't
sure
how
to
store
the
state
like
what
the
best
way
of
storing
the
state
of
like.
Oh,
I
created
a
load
bouncer
and
it
is
equivalent
to
this
new
one
that
I'm
about
to
create.
So
I
need
to
clean
up
the
old
one.
I
considered
things
like.
A
C
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
B
I
think
I
I
think
we
actually
have
a
bug.
Well,
we
have
a
bug
that
I
have
no
idea
how
to
solve
here,
which
is
so
there's
I
mean,
there's
the
bug
that
we
we
are
trying
to
configure
some
different
subnets
on
the
on
the
load,
balancer
and
user.
Some
things
argues
that
we
should
not
change,
not
change
them
at
all,
which
I
think
is
one
issue.
I'm
not
sure
I
agree,
we
shouldn't
change
them,
but
that's
one
thing
the
other
one
is.
B
If
we
try
to
change
all
the
subnets
on
a
elb,
I
don't
think
we
can,
because
we
end
up
like
trying
to
remove
them
all
which
you
can't
do
you're
not
allowed
to
do
that.
So
you
can.
You
can't
go
to
zero
and
I
think
we
try
to
go
to
zero
and
I
don't
know
where
that
yeah.
I
think
I
think
it's
because
it's
in
one
it's
in
when
we're
only
in
one
zone,
you
can't
have
two
in
the
same
zone
and
you
can't
have
zero.
B
C
In
the
auto
discovery
like
we
actually
choose
one
subnet
from
each
easy
and
we
verify
that
there's
at
least
one
subnet
available.
So
that
should
not
be
an
issue
for
the
auto
discovery.
Part
and,
as
far
as
I
know
like
for
clv,
we
can
edit
the
subnet,
but
for
nlp
we
ignore
it.
After
the
load,
balancer
is
created
in
the
entry
code.
C
A
C
B
B
That's
not
unreasonable
to
be
honest,
but
I
think
it's
not
how
it
works,
but
it's
not
unreasonable
and
then
I
think
I
think
we
should
also
find
out,
though
from
them
what
from
the
user,
why
they
are
creating
multiple
subnets
and
tagging
them
all,
because
normally
you
have
one
subnet
tagged
for
internal
and
and
one
subnet
tag
for
external,
and
that's
it.
If
I
recall
correctly,
but
you
don't
you
don't
have
them
tagged
the
same.
You.
C
C
At
this
issue
as
well,
I
will
try
to
understand
like
how
exactly
they're
running
to
this
for
the
load
balancer
controller,
like
in
the
upcoming
version.
We,
what
we'll
do
is
like
we'll
only
assign
subnet
during
load,
balancer
creation
and
will
not
edit
them
later,
and
we
do
some
capacity
based
choice
as
well
like
if
we
only
choose
subnets
which
have
enough
ip
addresses.
So
that's
the
enhancement.
A
A
A
A
By
hand-
and
I
think
or
our
build
automation
was
pushing
the
tag
that
basically
looked
like
just
this
and
I
think,
based
on
some
some
changes
to
build
automation.
We
no
longer
push
that
tag.
We
have
always
have
this
kind
of
date
thing
in
the
front
of
it,
which
is
kind
of
ugly,
so
I
I
did
actually
have
a
pr
open
that
I
think
might
fix
it,
but
yeah.
I
need
to
to
double
check
that,
so
I
will
do
that.
A
A
B
D
B
C
C
D
A
A
C
C
C
B
This
is
where
I
think
so,
if
you're
running
nginx,
I
agree
it's
confusing.
If
you're
running
engine
xl
you,
you
can
also
have
a
like
a
traditional
elb
or
nlb
like
a
layer,
four
load
balancer
and
you
use
nginx
as
your
seven
load,
balancer
and
good
equipment
that
that
can
work.
But
I
agree
with
you
that
isn't
what
they've
like.