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

Identify path forward for Keycloak with Istio Ambient #1031

Open
Tracked by #681
mjnagel opened this issue Nov 20, 2024 · 3 comments
Open
Tracked by #681

Identify path forward for Keycloak with Istio Ambient #1031

mjnagel opened this issue Nov 20, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@mjnagel
Copy link
Contributor

mjnagel commented Nov 20, 2024

Our current L7 AuthorizationPolicies for Keycloak are not natively supported with Ambient unless we are using Waypoints. This issue should find a path forward to setup waypoints for Keycloak and ensure full functionality including:

  • Access from both tenant and admin gateways
  • Proper restrictions of paths from the tenant gateway
  • Access to client registration from Pepr
@mjnagel
Copy link
Contributor Author

mjnagel commented Nov 20, 2024

Path identified here/usage of waypoints may inform #1029.

Additional note related to Keycloak from our previous work:

Traffic to keycloak from Pepr showed as originating from a "different" host, requiring a new trusted host policy in Keycloak for *.pepr-uds-core-watcher.pepr-system.svc.cluster.local (previously we were using the generic Isto 127.0.0.6).

@sgettys
Copy link
Contributor

sgettys commented Jan 9, 2025

This is working with Waypoint, need to determine UX around Waypoint and Ambient (always deploy Waypoint or add either logic in Pepr to auto detect if Waypoint is needed or add configuration option to UDS Package CR)

Also requires adding Waypoint trusted host so a full config would include support for sidecar, ambient ztunnel, and waypoint see uds-identity-config PR299

@mjnagel
Copy link
Contributor Author

mjnagel commented Jan 16, 2025

In light of ^ note opened #1200 to track this. This issue could be closed out with that one - leaving open for now in case this requires special implementation.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants