Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 1292243

Summary: [RFE] router using tcp passthrough
Product: OpenShift Container Platform Reporter: Eric Jones <erjones>
Component: RFEAssignee: Mike Barrett <mbarrett>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Johnny Liu <jialiu>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 3.0.0CC: aos-bugs, ccoleman, eparis, jokerman, jswensso, mmccomas, trankin
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
OpenShift v3.0.2
Last Closed: 2016-02-22 16:09:19 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:
Embargoed:

Description Eric Jones 2015-12-16 19:54:10 UTC 
- What is the nature and description of the request?  
As an admin I need the ability to pass logs and other information through TCP ports.

- Why does the customer need this? (List the business requirements here)  
For research purposes they have ELK stacks setup that work with rsyslog and TCP ports. 

- How would the customer like to achieve this? (List the functional requirements here)  
Add ports to the router that are not HTTP, HTTPS, or SNI.

- Is there already an existing RFE upstream or in Red Hat Bugzilla?  
Not that I could find  

- List any affected packages or components.  
OpenShift
Router
Comment 3 Eric Paris 2015-12-17 06:01:43 UTC 
This does look like a dupe of 1287471

Assigning to Product Management as this is a feature, not a bug. See:

https://trello.com/c/9TXvMeS2/54-supporting-non-80-443-traffic-routes-traffic-ingress

Which is our actual work queue. We have some hope to address this in a future version of OpenShift, but as always, plans may change.
Comment 4 Clayton Coleman 2016-02-07 20:10:35 UTC 
Service NodePorts are our current recommendation for this sort of function.
Comment 5 Dan McPherson 2016-02-22 16:09:19 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1287471 ***