proposal: AFD + WAF + Private Link GLB#373
Draft
rchincha wants to merge 6 commits into
Draft
Conversation
…NS253 Adds docs/first-party/ folder with an index README and proposal 001 outlining how to extend fleet-networking beyond ATM to satisfy SFI-NS253 for first-party AKS workloads via Azure Front Door Standard/Premium with an attached WAF policy and Private Link origins. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Copilot-Session: 10282cca-4848-413e-a12a-f6cf963a72ec
…osal 002) Adds docs/first-party/002-afd-implementation-plan.md — the executable companion to proposal 001. Covers guiding conventions extracted from the existing ATM implementation, a complete file-by-file scope table (add/modify/generated), Go type sketches with CEL rules, controller skeletons, cmd/hub-net-controller-manager/main.go diff, a 5-phase delivery plan, backward-compatibility notes, risks, and success criteria. Also updates docs/first-party/README.md to index proposal 002. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Copilot-Session: 10282cca-4848-413e-a12a-f6cf963a72ec
rchincha
marked this pull request as draft
July 15, 2026 18:53
rchincha
changed the title
Proposal 002: add new section 8 'East-west (MCS) compatibility' covering guarantees for the ServiceExport/ServiceImport/EndpointSlice* data plane, guardrails on the ExportMode transition, interaction with the existing TrafficManagerBackend controller, and required non-regression test coverage. Renumber subsequent sections. Proposals 001 and 002: call out that AFD is L7-only (HTTP/HTTPS + WebSockets-over-HTTPS) and that L4 first-party workloads are not covered by this proposal — future L4 SFI-NS253 compliance likely via Azure Cross-region Load Balancer. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Copilot-Session: 10282cca-4848-413e-a12a-f6cf963a72ec
Adds docs/first-party/003-pre-implementation-checklist.md — converts the open design questions from proposal 001 and the unstated assumptions in proposal 002 into a trackable list of gates: - open design decisions (profile scope, WAF requiredness, custom domains phase, umbrella CRD, adding Spec to ServiceExport) - external review / sign-off gates (maintainer, SFI, PM, security) - spikes (AKS PLS status annotation, armcdn SDK compat, cross-sub PLS auto-approval, RBAC minimums, dev-sub, chart cloud-config interaction) - overall readiness verdict with per-phase gating rules Also indexes proposal 003 in the folder README. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Copilot-Session: 10282cca-4848-413e-a12a-f6cf963a72ec
…profile scope Proposal 001: - 2.1: add explicit traffic-isolation property (AFD PoP → Microsoft backbone → PE → ILB → pod, no public internet leg, no public IP on origin) with ASCII flow diagram. - 2.1: state AFD Premium (not Standard) as the required SKU. - 2.3: expand the non-goal on non-Premium SKUs — Standard is out of scope because Private Link origins are Premium-only. - 3.2: annotate the topology description with the backbone-isolation guarantee. Proposal 003: - 1.1: resolve profile scope as **namespaced**, with rationale tying ownership to the PLS/Service/namespace boundary and calling out that the per-flow isolation property does not require a cluster-scoped profile. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Copilot-Session: 10282cca-4848-413e-a12a-f6cf963a72ec
…equiredness (1.2) Proposal 002: - 3.1: replace SKU enum with single-value Premium (Standard removed per proposal 001 2.3). Add a first-class spec.complianceMode: None | SFI-NS253 field (default None, immutable). CEL requires spec.wafPolicy when complianceMode is SFI-NS253. - 4.2: describe the FrontDoorBackend reconciler's cross-check that refuses privateLink=false when the referenced profile is in SFI mode (surfaced as Accepted=False, Reason=SFIComplianceViolation). Closes the loophole of an SFI-compliant profile with a lax backend. Proposal 003: - 1.2: resolve as 'required when complianceMode == SFI-NS253', with rationale explaining why an explicit Spec field beats an annotation-based marker (auditable, mistype-safe, kubectl- discoverable, drives both profile and backend enforcement). Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Copilot-Session: 10282cca-4848-413e-a12a-f6cf963a72ec
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What type of PR is this?
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Requirements:
make reviewablefor basic local testHow has this code been tested
Special notes for your reviewer