What are the Advantages of using Kubernetes Ingress in Azure AKS
My understanding is that setting the Service
type to LoadBalancer
creates a new Azure Load Balancer and assigns an IP address to the Service
. Does this mean that I can have multiple Services using port 80? If the app behind my Service
(an ASP.NET Core app) can handle TLS and HTTPS why shouldn't I just use LoadBalancer
's for any Service
I want to expose to the internet?
What is the advantage of using an Ingress
if I don't care about TLS termination (You can let Cloudflare handle TLS termination)? If anything, it slows things down by adding an extra hop for every request.
Update
Some answers below mention that creating load balancers is costly. It should be noted that load balancers on Azure are free but they do charge for IP addresses of which they give you five for free. So for small projects where you want to expose up to five IP addresses, it's essentially free. Any more than that, then you may want to look ad usign Ingress
.
Some answers also mention extra complexity if you don't use Ingress
. I have already mentioned that Cloudflare can handle TLS termination for me. I've also discovered the external-dns
Kubernetes project to create DNS entries in Cloudflare pointing at the load balancers IP address? It seems to me that cutting out Ingress
reduces complexity as it's one less thing that I have to configure and manage. The choice of Ingress is also massive, it's likely that I'll pick the wrong one which will end up unmaintained after some time.
azure kubernetes kubernetes-ingress azure-kubernetes azure-aks
add a comment |
My understanding is that setting the Service
type to LoadBalancer
creates a new Azure Load Balancer and assigns an IP address to the Service
. Does this mean that I can have multiple Services using port 80? If the app behind my Service
(an ASP.NET Core app) can handle TLS and HTTPS why shouldn't I just use LoadBalancer
's for any Service
I want to expose to the internet?
What is the advantage of using an Ingress
if I don't care about TLS termination (You can let Cloudflare handle TLS termination)? If anything, it slows things down by adding an extra hop for every request.
Update
Some answers below mention that creating load balancers is costly. It should be noted that load balancers on Azure are free but they do charge for IP addresses of which they give you five for free. So for small projects where you want to expose up to five IP addresses, it's essentially free. Any more than that, then you may want to look ad usign Ingress
.
Some answers also mention extra complexity if you don't use Ingress
. I have already mentioned that Cloudflare can handle TLS termination for me. I've also discovered the external-dns
Kubernetes project to create DNS entries in Cloudflare pointing at the load balancers IP address? It seems to me that cutting out Ingress
reduces complexity as it's one less thing that I have to configure and manage. The choice of Ingress is also massive, it's likely that I'll pick the wrong one which will end up unmaintained after some time.
azure kubernetes kubernetes-ingress azure-kubernetes azure-aks
add a comment |
My understanding is that setting the Service
type to LoadBalancer
creates a new Azure Load Balancer and assigns an IP address to the Service
. Does this mean that I can have multiple Services using port 80? If the app behind my Service
(an ASP.NET Core app) can handle TLS and HTTPS why shouldn't I just use LoadBalancer
's for any Service
I want to expose to the internet?
What is the advantage of using an Ingress
if I don't care about TLS termination (You can let Cloudflare handle TLS termination)? If anything, it slows things down by adding an extra hop for every request.
Update
Some answers below mention that creating load balancers is costly. It should be noted that load balancers on Azure are free but they do charge for IP addresses of which they give you five for free. So for small projects where you want to expose up to five IP addresses, it's essentially free. Any more than that, then you may want to look ad usign Ingress
.
Some answers also mention extra complexity if you don't use Ingress
. I have already mentioned that Cloudflare can handle TLS termination for me. I've also discovered the external-dns
Kubernetes project to create DNS entries in Cloudflare pointing at the load balancers IP address? It seems to me that cutting out Ingress
reduces complexity as it's one less thing that I have to configure and manage. The choice of Ingress is also massive, it's likely that I'll pick the wrong one which will end up unmaintained after some time.
azure kubernetes kubernetes-ingress azure-kubernetes azure-aks
My understanding is that setting the Service
type to LoadBalancer
creates a new Azure Load Balancer and assigns an IP address to the Service
. Does this mean that I can have multiple Services using port 80? If the app behind my Service
(an ASP.NET Core app) can handle TLS and HTTPS why shouldn't I just use LoadBalancer
's for any Service
I want to expose to the internet?
What is the advantage of using an Ingress
if I don't care about TLS termination (You can let Cloudflare handle TLS termination)? If anything, it slows things down by adding an extra hop for every request.
Update
Some answers below mention that creating load balancers is costly. It should be noted that load balancers on Azure are free but they do charge for IP addresses of which they give you five for free. So for small projects where you want to expose up to five IP addresses, it's essentially free. Any more than that, then you may want to look ad usign Ingress
.
Some answers also mention extra complexity if you don't use Ingress
. I have already mentioned that Cloudflare can handle TLS termination for me. I've also discovered the external-dns
Kubernetes project to create DNS entries in Cloudflare pointing at the load balancers IP address? It seems to me that cutting out Ingress
reduces complexity as it's one less thing that I have to configure and manage. The choice of Ingress is also massive, it's likely that I'll pick the wrong one which will end up unmaintained after some time.
azure kubernetes kubernetes-ingress azure-kubernetes azure-aks
azure kubernetes kubernetes-ingress azure-kubernetes azure-aks
edited Jan 10 at 8:59
Muhammad Rehan Saeed
asked Nov 21 '18 at 15:34
Muhammad Rehan SaeedMuhammad Rehan Saeed
11.9k9109187
11.9k9109187
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
No, you cant have multiple services listening on port 80, as load balancer wont know where to route them (ingress will, however). If you can affort to host each service on different port you could use load balancer. alternatively, if you have public ip for each service and different backend port on each service you can achieve this.
quote: The protocol and port combination you entered matches another rule used by this load balancer. The protocol and port combination of each load balancing rule and inbound NAT rule on a load balancer must be unique.
again, if you are a developer, you probably do not realize how much more convenient it is to manage certificate on ingress, and not on all individual containers that are supposed to be accessible
But if the load balancer is a separate IP address, then in theory each can have it's own application on port 80. Could the load balancer route port 80 requests to Services on different ports?
– Muhammad Rehan Saeed
Nov 21 '18 at 16:11
1
yeah, with different backend ports that would work
– 4c74356b41
Nov 21 '18 at 16:47
I'm guessing the only downside might be cost, I'm not sure how the pricing works out or what you pay for? On the upside, you would not be paying for the compute power to run the ingress containers. BTW, I thinking that you could use Cloudflare to do TLS termination. I suspect that this is the fastest, cheapest compromise when it comes to using Kubernetes.
– Muhammad Rehan Saeed
Nov 21 '18 at 17:12
nah, biggest downside is complexity. ip addresses cost almost nothing. managing certificates on different deployments would be a nightmare. and you'd have to code for that as well. makes no sense really
– 4c74356b41
Nov 21 '18 at 17:14
1
In Azure, every service of typeLoadBalancer
gets a new PublicIP attached to the one Load Balancer created when the first service of this type is created. So it's perfectly possible to expose multiple services on the same port.
– alev
Nov 21 '18 at 22:19
|
show 1 more comment
There is a nice article here which describe the differences on Service(Load Balancer) and Ingress.
In summary, you can have multiple Service(Load Balancer) in the cluster, where each application is exposed independently from each other. The main issue is that each Load Balancer added will increase the cost of your solution, and does not have to be this way, unless you strictly need this.
If multiple applications listen on port 80, and they are inside the container, there is no reason you also need to map it to the port 80 in the host node. You can assign it to any port, because the Service will handle the dynamic port mappings for you.
The ingress is best in this scenario, because you can have one ingress listing on port 80, and route the traffic to the right service based on many variables, like:
- Domain
- Url Path
- Query String
- And many other
Ingress in not just for TLS termination, it is in simple terms a proxygateway that will control the routing to the right service, TLS termination is just one of the features.
The cost of Azure load balancers (Basic SKU) is £0, load balancers being expensive is not true for AKS. It is for AWS EKS and I'm not sure about Google GKE.
– Muhammad Rehan Saeed
Jan 8 at 9:04
1
Technically you are correct, but Azure you pay for the IPs and each public LB requires one IP to work, I think you have 5 free if I am not wrong!
– Diego Mendes
Jan 8 at 11:13
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53415487%2fwhat-are-the-advantages-of-using-kubernetes-ingress-in-azure-aks%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No, you cant have multiple services listening on port 80, as load balancer wont know where to route them (ingress will, however). If you can affort to host each service on different port you could use load balancer. alternatively, if you have public ip for each service and different backend port on each service you can achieve this.
quote: The protocol and port combination you entered matches another rule used by this load balancer. The protocol and port combination of each load balancing rule and inbound NAT rule on a load balancer must be unique.
again, if you are a developer, you probably do not realize how much more convenient it is to manage certificate on ingress, and not on all individual containers that are supposed to be accessible
But if the load balancer is a separate IP address, then in theory each can have it's own application on port 80. Could the load balancer route port 80 requests to Services on different ports?
– Muhammad Rehan Saeed
Nov 21 '18 at 16:11
1
yeah, with different backend ports that would work
– 4c74356b41
Nov 21 '18 at 16:47
I'm guessing the only downside might be cost, I'm not sure how the pricing works out or what you pay for? On the upside, you would not be paying for the compute power to run the ingress containers. BTW, I thinking that you could use Cloudflare to do TLS termination. I suspect that this is the fastest, cheapest compromise when it comes to using Kubernetes.
– Muhammad Rehan Saeed
Nov 21 '18 at 17:12
nah, biggest downside is complexity. ip addresses cost almost nothing. managing certificates on different deployments would be a nightmare. and you'd have to code for that as well. makes no sense really
– 4c74356b41
Nov 21 '18 at 17:14
1
In Azure, every service of typeLoadBalancer
gets a new PublicIP attached to the one Load Balancer created when the first service of this type is created. So it's perfectly possible to expose multiple services on the same port.
– alev
Nov 21 '18 at 22:19
|
show 1 more comment
No, you cant have multiple services listening on port 80, as load balancer wont know where to route them (ingress will, however). If you can affort to host each service on different port you could use load balancer. alternatively, if you have public ip for each service and different backend port on each service you can achieve this.
quote: The protocol and port combination you entered matches another rule used by this load balancer. The protocol and port combination of each load balancing rule and inbound NAT rule on a load balancer must be unique.
again, if you are a developer, you probably do not realize how much more convenient it is to manage certificate on ingress, and not on all individual containers that are supposed to be accessible
But if the load balancer is a separate IP address, then in theory each can have it's own application on port 80. Could the load balancer route port 80 requests to Services on different ports?
– Muhammad Rehan Saeed
Nov 21 '18 at 16:11
1
yeah, with different backend ports that would work
– 4c74356b41
Nov 21 '18 at 16:47
I'm guessing the only downside might be cost, I'm not sure how the pricing works out or what you pay for? On the upside, you would not be paying for the compute power to run the ingress containers. BTW, I thinking that you could use Cloudflare to do TLS termination. I suspect that this is the fastest, cheapest compromise when it comes to using Kubernetes.
– Muhammad Rehan Saeed
Nov 21 '18 at 17:12
nah, biggest downside is complexity. ip addresses cost almost nothing. managing certificates on different deployments would be a nightmare. and you'd have to code for that as well. makes no sense really
– 4c74356b41
Nov 21 '18 at 17:14
1
In Azure, every service of typeLoadBalancer
gets a new PublicIP attached to the one Load Balancer created when the first service of this type is created. So it's perfectly possible to expose multiple services on the same port.
– alev
Nov 21 '18 at 22:19
|
show 1 more comment
No, you cant have multiple services listening on port 80, as load balancer wont know where to route them (ingress will, however). If you can affort to host each service on different port you could use load balancer. alternatively, if you have public ip for each service and different backend port on each service you can achieve this.
quote: The protocol and port combination you entered matches another rule used by this load balancer. The protocol and port combination of each load balancing rule and inbound NAT rule on a load balancer must be unique.
again, if you are a developer, you probably do not realize how much more convenient it is to manage certificate on ingress, and not on all individual containers that are supposed to be accessible
No, you cant have multiple services listening on port 80, as load balancer wont know where to route them (ingress will, however). If you can affort to host each service on different port you could use load balancer. alternatively, if you have public ip for each service and different backend port on each service you can achieve this.
quote: The protocol and port combination you entered matches another rule used by this load balancer. The protocol and port combination of each load balancing rule and inbound NAT rule on a load balancer must be unique.
again, if you are a developer, you probably do not realize how much more convenient it is to manage certificate on ingress, and not on all individual containers that are supposed to be accessible
edited Nov 21 '18 at 16:48
answered Nov 21 '18 at 15:55
4c74356b414c74356b41
27.5k42053
27.5k42053
But if the load balancer is a separate IP address, then in theory each can have it's own application on port 80. Could the load balancer route port 80 requests to Services on different ports?
– Muhammad Rehan Saeed
Nov 21 '18 at 16:11
1
yeah, with different backend ports that would work
– 4c74356b41
Nov 21 '18 at 16:47
I'm guessing the only downside might be cost, I'm not sure how the pricing works out or what you pay for? On the upside, you would not be paying for the compute power to run the ingress containers. BTW, I thinking that you could use Cloudflare to do TLS termination. I suspect that this is the fastest, cheapest compromise when it comes to using Kubernetes.
– Muhammad Rehan Saeed
Nov 21 '18 at 17:12
nah, biggest downside is complexity. ip addresses cost almost nothing. managing certificates on different deployments would be a nightmare. and you'd have to code for that as well. makes no sense really
– 4c74356b41
Nov 21 '18 at 17:14
1
In Azure, every service of typeLoadBalancer
gets a new PublicIP attached to the one Load Balancer created when the first service of this type is created. So it's perfectly possible to expose multiple services on the same port.
– alev
Nov 21 '18 at 22:19
|
show 1 more comment
But if the load balancer is a separate IP address, then in theory each can have it's own application on port 80. Could the load balancer route port 80 requests to Services on different ports?
– Muhammad Rehan Saeed
Nov 21 '18 at 16:11
1
yeah, with different backend ports that would work
– 4c74356b41
Nov 21 '18 at 16:47
I'm guessing the only downside might be cost, I'm not sure how the pricing works out or what you pay for? On the upside, you would not be paying for the compute power to run the ingress containers. BTW, I thinking that you could use Cloudflare to do TLS termination. I suspect that this is the fastest, cheapest compromise when it comes to using Kubernetes.
– Muhammad Rehan Saeed
Nov 21 '18 at 17:12
nah, biggest downside is complexity. ip addresses cost almost nothing. managing certificates on different deployments would be a nightmare. and you'd have to code for that as well. makes no sense really
– 4c74356b41
Nov 21 '18 at 17:14
1
In Azure, every service of typeLoadBalancer
gets a new PublicIP attached to the one Load Balancer created when the first service of this type is created. So it's perfectly possible to expose multiple services on the same port.
– alev
Nov 21 '18 at 22:19
But if the load balancer is a separate IP address, then in theory each can have it's own application on port 80. Could the load balancer route port 80 requests to Services on different ports?
– Muhammad Rehan Saeed
Nov 21 '18 at 16:11
But if the load balancer is a separate IP address, then in theory each can have it's own application on port 80. Could the load balancer route port 80 requests to Services on different ports?
– Muhammad Rehan Saeed
Nov 21 '18 at 16:11
1
1
yeah, with different backend ports that would work
– 4c74356b41
Nov 21 '18 at 16:47
yeah, with different backend ports that would work
– 4c74356b41
Nov 21 '18 at 16:47
I'm guessing the only downside might be cost, I'm not sure how the pricing works out or what you pay for? On the upside, you would not be paying for the compute power to run the ingress containers. BTW, I thinking that you could use Cloudflare to do TLS termination. I suspect that this is the fastest, cheapest compromise when it comes to using Kubernetes.
– Muhammad Rehan Saeed
Nov 21 '18 at 17:12
I'm guessing the only downside might be cost, I'm not sure how the pricing works out or what you pay for? On the upside, you would not be paying for the compute power to run the ingress containers. BTW, I thinking that you could use Cloudflare to do TLS termination. I suspect that this is the fastest, cheapest compromise when it comes to using Kubernetes.
– Muhammad Rehan Saeed
Nov 21 '18 at 17:12
nah, biggest downside is complexity. ip addresses cost almost nothing. managing certificates on different deployments would be a nightmare. and you'd have to code for that as well. makes no sense really
– 4c74356b41
Nov 21 '18 at 17:14
nah, biggest downside is complexity. ip addresses cost almost nothing. managing certificates on different deployments would be a nightmare. and you'd have to code for that as well. makes no sense really
– 4c74356b41
Nov 21 '18 at 17:14
1
1
In Azure, every service of type
LoadBalancer
gets a new PublicIP attached to the one Load Balancer created when the first service of this type is created. So it's perfectly possible to expose multiple services on the same port.– alev
Nov 21 '18 at 22:19
In Azure, every service of type
LoadBalancer
gets a new PublicIP attached to the one Load Balancer created when the first service of this type is created. So it's perfectly possible to expose multiple services on the same port.– alev
Nov 21 '18 at 22:19
|
show 1 more comment
There is a nice article here which describe the differences on Service(Load Balancer) and Ingress.
In summary, you can have multiple Service(Load Balancer) in the cluster, where each application is exposed independently from each other. The main issue is that each Load Balancer added will increase the cost of your solution, and does not have to be this way, unless you strictly need this.
If multiple applications listen on port 80, and they are inside the container, there is no reason you also need to map it to the port 80 in the host node. You can assign it to any port, because the Service will handle the dynamic port mappings for you.
The ingress is best in this scenario, because you can have one ingress listing on port 80, and route the traffic to the right service based on many variables, like:
- Domain
- Url Path
- Query String
- And many other
Ingress in not just for TLS termination, it is in simple terms a proxygateway that will control the routing to the right service, TLS termination is just one of the features.
The cost of Azure load balancers (Basic SKU) is £0, load balancers being expensive is not true for AKS. It is for AWS EKS and I'm not sure about Google GKE.
– Muhammad Rehan Saeed
Jan 8 at 9:04
1
Technically you are correct, but Azure you pay for the IPs and each public LB requires one IP to work, I think you have 5 free if I am not wrong!
– Diego Mendes
Jan 8 at 11:13
add a comment |
There is a nice article here which describe the differences on Service(Load Balancer) and Ingress.
In summary, you can have multiple Service(Load Balancer) in the cluster, where each application is exposed independently from each other. The main issue is that each Load Balancer added will increase the cost of your solution, and does not have to be this way, unless you strictly need this.
If multiple applications listen on port 80, and they are inside the container, there is no reason you also need to map it to the port 80 in the host node. You can assign it to any port, because the Service will handle the dynamic port mappings for you.
The ingress is best in this scenario, because you can have one ingress listing on port 80, and route the traffic to the right service based on many variables, like:
- Domain
- Url Path
- Query String
- And many other
Ingress in not just for TLS termination, it is in simple terms a proxygateway that will control the routing to the right service, TLS termination is just one of the features.
The cost of Azure load balancers (Basic SKU) is £0, load balancers being expensive is not true for AKS. It is for AWS EKS and I'm not sure about Google GKE.
– Muhammad Rehan Saeed
Jan 8 at 9:04
1
Technically you are correct, but Azure you pay for the IPs and each public LB requires one IP to work, I think you have 5 free if I am not wrong!
– Diego Mendes
Jan 8 at 11:13
add a comment |
There is a nice article here which describe the differences on Service(Load Balancer) and Ingress.
In summary, you can have multiple Service(Load Balancer) in the cluster, where each application is exposed independently from each other. The main issue is that each Load Balancer added will increase the cost of your solution, and does not have to be this way, unless you strictly need this.
If multiple applications listen on port 80, and they are inside the container, there is no reason you also need to map it to the port 80 in the host node. You can assign it to any port, because the Service will handle the dynamic port mappings for you.
The ingress is best in this scenario, because you can have one ingress listing on port 80, and route the traffic to the right service based on many variables, like:
- Domain
- Url Path
- Query String
- And many other
Ingress in not just for TLS termination, it is in simple terms a proxygateway that will control the routing to the right service, TLS termination is just one of the features.
There is a nice article here which describe the differences on Service(Load Balancer) and Ingress.
In summary, you can have multiple Service(Load Balancer) in the cluster, where each application is exposed independently from each other. The main issue is that each Load Balancer added will increase the cost of your solution, and does not have to be this way, unless you strictly need this.
If multiple applications listen on port 80, and they are inside the container, there is no reason you also need to map it to the port 80 in the host node. You can assign it to any port, because the Service will handle the dynamic port mappings for you.
The ingress is best in this scenario, because you can have one ingress listing on port 80, and route the traffic to the right service based on many variables, like:
- Domain
- Url Path
- Query String
- And many other
Ingress in not just for TLS termination, it is in simple terms a proxygateway that will control the routing to the right service, TLS termination is just one of the features.
answered Jan 7 at 10:46
Diego MendesDiego Mendes
4,60611827
4,60611827
The cost of Azure load balancers (Basic SKU) is £0, load balancers being expensive is not true for AKS. It is for AWS EKS and I'm not sure about Google GKE.
– Muhammad Rehan Saeed
Jan 8 at 9:04
1
Technically you are correct, but Azure you pay for the IPs and each public LB requires one IP to work, I think you have 5 free if I am not wrong!
– Diego Mendes
Jan 8 at 11:13
add a comment |
The cost of Azure load balancers (Basic SKU) is £0, load balancers being expensive is not true for AKS. It is for AWS EKS and I'm not sure about Google GKE.
– Muhammad Rehan Saeed
Jan 8 at 9:04
1
Technically you are correct, but Azure you pay for the IPs and each public LB requires one IP to work, I think you have 5 free if I am not wrong!
– Diego Mendes
Jan 8 at 11:13
The cost of Azure load balancers (Basic SKU) is £0, load balancers being expensive is not true for AKS. It is for AWS EKS and I'm not sure about Google GKE.
– Muhammad Rehan Saeed
Jan 8 at 9:04
The cost of Azure load balancers (Basic SKU) is £0, load balancers being expensive is not true for AKS. It is for AWS EKS and I'm not sure about Google GKE.
– Muhammad Rehan Saeed
Jan 8 at 9:04
1
1
Technically you are correct, but Azure you pay for the IPs and each public LB requires one IP to work, I think you have 5 free if I am not wrong!
– Diego Mendes
Jan 8 at 11:13
Technically you are correct, but Azure you pay for the IPs and each public LB requires one IP to work, I think you have 5 free if I am not wrong!
– Diego Mendes
Jan 8 at 11:13
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53415487%2fwhat-are-the-advantages-of-using-kubernetes-ingress-in-azure-aks%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown