Bug 1393490

Summary:	[RFE] Route definitions should allow for multiple hostnames to be set
Product:	OpenShift Container Platform	Reporter:	Eric Rich <erich>
Component:	RFE	Assignee:	Dan McPherson <dmcphers>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:	Xiaoli Tian <xtian>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	3.3.0	CC:	akostadi, aos-bugs, bbennett, ccoleman, erich, jokerman, jpazdziora, mmccomas, pcameron, sukulkar, zzhao
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:	1347822	Environment:
Last Closed:	2016-11-09 22:47:56 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:	1347822
Bug Blocks:

Description Eric Rich 2016-11-09 16:37:33 UTC

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1347822 +++

Description of problem:
As a user I want to use custom domain name for my application. That means I need to setup my DNS entry properly pointing at OpenShift routers. By default with some OpenShift configurations a "wildcard" dns name is used, and "default" routes are defined when I expose a service. 

With OpenShift v2 the ability to define an "alias", that pointed to this "default route" that was part of the "wildcard subdomain" was possible. 

With v3 this should again be made possible by allowing, the route object to define, multiple (acceptable) hostnames for the route (alternative name annotations). 

This would allow CNAMES (on dns providers) to point to the "default route" (hostname) and both DNS records would service request for the route. 

- Note: Conflicts should be resolved, in the same way route conflicts are resolved with routes today, first route wins, all others report an error, and the route is not accepted.

Comment 2 Dan McPherson 2016-11-09 18:52:52 UTC

Could this not be accomplished with multiple routes?

Comment 3 Eric Rich 2016-11-09 19:21:58 UTC

(In reply to Dan McPherson from comment #2)
> Could this not be accomplished with multiple routes?

Yes, but I have a feeling that N routes for an application may case reload performance issues, greater than 1 route per application (with multiple names).

Comment 5 Dan McPherson 2016-11-09 22:47:56 UTC

There shouldn't be a meaningful performance difference.  I am more worried about this from a usability perspective.  Namely, having two different ways to do the same thing (since you could always add two routes would still work).  We would have to explain the difference (if there are any) between the two methods.