Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

refactor: Updates to privatelink-access based on latest working pattern #2065

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

px-dsingh
Copy link

Description

We have used the privatelink-access pattern internally and it mostly worked all good. In this PR included are some minor updates that we had to do to make it work:

  • Bumping up module versions
  • Simplifying security groups to use CIDRs
  • Fixing health check to use TCP and not HTTPS as we are using an NLB
  • Adding an egress security group rule to allow the NLB to communicate with the EKS cluster

Motivation and Context

We needed to follow this pattern to connect two VPCs in different accounts and one was hosting an EKS cluster. Contributing back changes that we had to make in order to make the pattern work.

How was this change tested?

  • Yes, I have tested the PR using my local account setup (Provide any test evidence report under Additional Notes)
  • Yes, I have updated the docs for this feature
  • Yes, I ran pre-commit run -a with this PR

Additional Notes

N/A

@px-dsingh px-dsingh requested a review from a team as a code owner January 23, 2025 11:07
@px-dsingh px-dsingh changed the title Updates to privatelink-access based on latest working pattern refactor: Updates to privatelink-access based on latest working pattern Jan 23, 2025
@bryantbiggs
Copy link
Contributor

Are you saying the current pattern is not working as intended per the README?

@px-dsingh
Copy link
Author

Are you saying the current pattern is not working as intended per the README?

Correct yes, the targets didn't come up healthily for me behind the NLB as per the pattern.

@bryantbiggs
Copy link
Contributor

I've deployed the pattern as is this morning and its working as intended for me - could you try deploying it again, as is?

Unfortunately, I don't think most of these changes are warranted or they are opening up more access than what is necessary

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants