Document URL: https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/3.6/install_config/registry/securing_and_exposing_registry.html#exposing-the-registry
Section Number and Name:
Describe the issue: Running the command 'oc create route passthrough --service=docker-registry --hostname=my.domain.name.com' fails with the error "Error from server (AlreadyExists): router 'docker-registry' already exists'.
Suggestions for improvement: This needs to go through QA and be changed to something else; it does not work as written.
Additional information: Doing an 'oc get route/docker-registry -o yaml' clearly shows a pre-created passthrough route created in the install process.
Can you not just define a new name like 'my-route' ?
oc create route passthrough my-route --service=docker-registry --hostname=my.domain.name.com
Certainly one can change the name of the route, but our documentation does not yet reflect that. Our customers are going to ask the same question as 3.6 rolls out:
Why did the installer change this from 3.5 to 3.6? What is the benefit?
It's necessary to support the registry-console which was a feature added after 3.5 GA.
Working via https://github.com/openshift/openshift-docs/pull/5032.
Updated PR with tech review feedback.
Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/openshift/openshift-docs
Merge pull request #5032 from adellape/regroute
Bug 1481798: Add caveats that registry is secured/exposed by default
The docs still acted like securing/exposing was not done by default already. Updated the doc to say what is likely already done by default, and frame the existing steps as manual procedures you can do if for some reason the registry is no longer secured/exposed.
https://github.com/openshift/openshift-docs/pull/5032 has merged and will be published in next week's release for OCP 3.6.