feat(root): author networking and configuration curriculum
root-07-m03-services-and-service-discovery — a new, full gold-standard- pattern module: the Service/Endpoints/DNS request path, choosing the right Service type. Lesson, demonstration (a Service with zero Endpoints — the single fastest diagnostic check for this failure class), knowledge check, guided exercise (ClusterIP vs. NodePort vs. LoadBalancer for three real components), a real Lab (expose-service-basics), and a reflection. root-07-m04-ingress-networkpolicy-foundations — a new PARTIAL module: Ingress and NetworkPolicy at the architectural level (the security- control framing of NetworkPolicy is deliberately deferred to ROOT 09). Lesson + knowledge check + real Labs (ingress-task, network-policy). Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <[email protected]>
This commit is contained in:
+90
@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
|
||||
# Ingress and NetworkPolicy: What They Architecturally Do
|
||||
|
||||
## Ingress: routing external HTTP(S) traffic by host/path
|
||||
|
||||
You already know a LoadBalancer Service can expose something to the public internet. But a real
|
||||
application usually needs more than "one raw IP to one Service" — you might want
|
||||
`api.example.com` and `app.example.com` to route to different backend Services, all through one
|
||||
entry point, with TLS termination handled in one place instead of per-Service.
|
||||
|
||||
**Ingress** is the Kubernetes object for exactly this: a set of HTTP routing rules (by hostname
|
||||
and/or URL path) that an Ingress controller reads and turns into actual load-balancer/proxy
|
||||
configuration.
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
apiVersion: networking.k8s.io/v1
|
||||
kind: Ingress
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
name: app-ingress
|
||||
spec:
|
||||
rules:
|
||||
- host: app.example.com
|
||||
http:
|
||||
paths:
|
||||
- path: /
|
||||
pathType: Prefix
|
||||
backend:
|
||||
service:
|
||||
name: frontend-svc
|
||||
port: { number: 80 }
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
An important distinction: Ingress is a set of ROUTING RULES, not a load balancer itself — an
|
||||
Ingress controller (a separate piece of software running in the cluster) is what actually reads
|
||||
these rules and does the routing. Without a controller installed, an Ingress object exists in
|
||||
the API but nothing acts on it.
|
||||
|
||||
## NetworkPolicy: traffic reachability as something you declare, not assume
|
||||
|
||||
By default, every Pod in a Kubernetes cluster can reach every other Pod — there is no built-in
|
||||
network isolation between them at all. This surprises people coming from a "obviously the
|
||||
network is locked down unless configured otherwise" assumption. It is exactly backwards from
|
||||
that assumption: **everything is reachable until you say otherwise.**
|
||||
|
||||
A NetworkPolicy changes this for the Pods it selects, by declaring which traffic IS allowed —
|
||||
everything not explicitly allowed to a Pod covered by at least one NetworkPolicy is then denied.
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
apiVersion: networking.k8s.io/v1
|
||||
kind: NetworkPolicy
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
name: allow-frontend-to-backend
|
||||
spec:
|
||||
podSelector:
|
||||
matchLabels: { app: backend }
|
||||
ingress:
|
||||
- from:
|
||||
- podSelector:
|
||||
matchLabels: { app: frontend }
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
This example allows traffic to `backend` Pods only from `frontend` Pods — once this policy
|
||||
exists and selects `backend`, every OTHER Pod trying to reach `backend` is now blocked, even
|
||||
though nothing was true about that before the policy existed.
|
||||
|
||||
## Why this matters architecturally, before it matters as a security control
|
||||
|
||||
Right now, think of NetworkPolicy purely as "declaring intended reachability, not assuming it."
|
||||
ROOT 09 comes back to NetworkPolicy specifically as a SECURITY control (default-deny postures,
|
||||
least-privilege network access) — this module is deliberately just the architectural mental
|
||||
model: Kubernetes doesn't isolate network traffic for you by default, and NetworkPolicy is the
|
||||
mechanism for declaring the reachability you actually intend.
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructor Notes
|
||||
|
||||
**Approximate timing:** 15 minutes read; 10 minutes live.
|
||||
|
||||
**Likely misconceptions to watch for:**
|
||||
- Students often assume Ingress by itself "does" the routing. Emphasize the controller
|
||||
requirement — an Ingress object with no controller installed does nothing.
|
||||
- The "everything reachable by default" fact genuinely surprises most students the first time
|
||||
they hear it — it's worth stating plainly and letting it land rather than rushing past it.
|
||||
|
||||
**Discussion question:** "If NO NetworkPolicy exists anywhere in a Namespace, what's the actual
|
||||
reachability between Pods in that Namespace?" (Answer: completely open — every Pod can reach
|
||||
every other Pod, matching the "everything reachable by default" rule.)
|
||||
|
||||
**Optional extension:** ask what would happen if you created a NetworkPolicy that selects
|
||||
`frontend` Pods but declares no `ingress` rules at all (answer: `frontend` Pods would become
|
||||
completely unreachable by anything — an empty ingress list inside a NetworkPolicy that HAS an
|
||||
ingress policyType means "deny all incoming," not "no policy applies").
|
||||
+46
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
|
||||
# Knowledge Check: Ingress & NetworkPolicy Foundations
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**1. You create an Ingress object with correct routing rules, but no traffic is ever routed
|
||||
according to them. What's the most likely reason?**
|
||||
|
||||
*Answer:* No Ingress controller is installed/running in the cluster. Ingress objects are just
|
||||
routing rules; a separate controller has to actually read and act on them, or nothing happens.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**2. True or false: by default, a Pod in Namespace A cannot reach a Pod in Namespace B unless a
|
||||
NetworkPolicy explicitly allows it.**
|
||||
|
||||
*Answer:* False — the opposite is true by default. With NO NetworkPolicy in place at all,
|
||||
every Pod can reach every other Pod regardless of Namespace. NetworkPolicy is what RESTRICTS
|
||||
this default-open behavior, not what's required to enable connectivity in the first place.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**3. A NetworkPolicy selects Pods labeled `app: backend` and declares one ingress rule allowing
|
||||
traffic from Pods labeled `app: frontend`. What happens to traffic from a Pod labeled
|
||||
`app: admin-tool` trying to reach `backend`?**
|
||||
|
||||
*Answer:* It's blocked. Once a NetworkPolicy selects a Pod, only traffic matching one of its
|
||||
explicit rules is allowed — everything else to that Pod is denied, including traffic that would
|
||||
have worked fine before the policy existed.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**4. Why is Ingress the right tool for exposing an HTTP application by hostname, rather than
|
||||
creating a separate LoadBalancer Service per hostname?**
|
||||
|
||||
*Answer:* A LoadBalancer Service typically provisions its own external IP/load balancer per
|
||||
Service — one per hostname would mean paying for and managing N separate external endpoints.
|
||||
Ingress lets one entry point route to many backend Services by hostname/path, which is both
|
||||
cheaper and centralizes concerns like TLS termination.
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructor Notes
|
||||
|
||||
**Facilitation:** Question 2 catches a very common and consequential misconception — worth
|
||||
confirming out loud that everyone actually updated their mental model, not just guessed
|
||||
correctly.
|
||||
|
||||
**Approximate timing:** 5 minutes.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user