Problem statement
Users that want to use Unified Gateway for their workloads need to follow a complicated, multi-step process. The resulting configuration is not managed by Kyma and as such can easily break and cause outages.
What is the current state, unmet need, or symptom?
Users need to manually procure a Unified Gateway instance and then integrate it with Kyma via some advanced Istio configuration. Overall the process is error-prone.
Who is affected?
- Developers
- Cluster admins
- Cluster ops
When and where does this problem occur?
Why does it matter?
Unified Gateway offers a number of features (like rate limiting, GBaaS, etc) that are highly sought after by customers. It also allows for certain degree of central routing across services.
At out-of-the-box integration that is managed and monitored would effectively add value to the Kyma offering by reducing the amount of work needed to use the functionality offered by UG.
Original request/trigger
Success metrics and targets
Risks, unknowns, and constraints
Dependencies and stakeholder map
Sub-problem: mTLS setup
A sub-problem that is also impacting golden path CAP multi-tenancy scenario with IAS is mTLS setup on Kyma.
Doing the mTLS setup on Kyma is currently cumbersome and error-prone.
In comparison CF provides OOTB mTLS endpoints.
We should sove the mTLS part in such a way that the CAP multi-tenancy scenario on Kyma is simplified.
Related issue: https://github.tools.sap/kyma/backlog/issues/7249
Problem statement
Users that want to use Unified Gateway for their workloads need to follow a complicated, multi-step process. The resulting configuration is not managed by Kyma and as such can easily break and cause outages.
What is the current state, unmet need, or symptom?
Users need to manually procure a Unified Gateway instance and then integrate it with Kyma via some advanced Istio configuration. Overall the process is error-prone.
Who is affected?
When and where does this problem occur?
Why does it matter?
Unified Gateway offers a number of features (like rate limiting, GBaaS, etc) that are highly sought after by customers. It also allows for certain degree of central routing across services.
At out-of-the-box integration that is managed and monitored would effectively add value to the Kyma offering by reducing the amount of work needed to use the functionality offered by UG.
Original request/trigger
Success metrics and targets
Risks, unknowns, and constraints
Dependencies and stakeholder map
Sub-problem: mTLS setup
A sub-problem that is also impacting golden path CAP multi-tenancy scenario with IAS is mTLS setup on Kyma.
Doing the mTLS setup on Kyma is currently cumbersome and error-prone.
In comparison CF provides OOTB mTLS endpoints.
We should sove the mTLS part in such a way that the CAP multi-tenancy scenario on Kyma is simplified.
Related issue: https://github.tools.sap/kyma/backlog/issues/7249