Chart: Implement HTTP2 appProtocol.

[j-cavoizy]

Add feature to enable HTTP2 appProtocol in service (useful in GKE)

What this PR does / why we need it:

We use nginx ingress controller as the backend of a gateway api resource in GKE and HTTP2 is a must have between the GCP Load Balancing and nginx ingress controller
Change is required because Nginx ingress controller helm chart doesn't have a flag that put HTTP2 in appProtocol in nginx ingress controller service.

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• CVE Report (Scanner found CVE and adding report)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Documentation only

Which issue/s this PR fixes

How Has This Been Tested?

Checklist:

• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I've read the CONTRIBUTION guide
• I have added unit and/or e2e tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-ingress-nginx canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	bec052f
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-ingress-nginx/deploys/64a412d9435abe000898c50e

[k8s-ci-robot]

This issue is currently awaiting triage.

If Ingress contributors determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the triage/accepted label and provide further guidance.

The triage/accepted label can be added by org members by writing /triage accepted in a comment.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @j-cavoizy. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: j-cavoizy
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign puerco for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[linux-foundation-easycla]

• ✅ login: j-cavoizy / name: Julien Cavoizy (24f7a9c, c24aae4, 753b4d1, 0cacc7e)
• ❌ The email address for the commit (802e9c3, 109a29c, 8a645af, bec052f) is not linked to the GitHub account, preventing the EasyCLA check. Consult this Help Article and GitHub Help to resolve. (To view the commit's email address, add .patch at the end of this PR page's URL.) For further assistance with EasyCLA, please submit a support request ticket.

[k8s-ci-robot]

PR needs rebase.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[strongjz]

Need to fix the merge conflict and sign the CLA

[Gacko]

Could you please also implement this on the internal service and rebase your PR? Thank you!

Also I'm not sure if the change in the magefiles is required.

/hold

[Gacko]

/assign

[Gacko]

/retitle Chart: Implement HTTP2 appProtocol.

Could you please elaborate on why you're fronting Ingress NGINX by Gateway API? To me they are both L7 solutions and HTTP controllers, so it feels like "putting one HTTP server in front of the other" instead of putting your actual workload directly behind Gateway API without Ingress NGINX in between.

There's already another PR about that use case. Maybe you can explain your use case to us.

Apart from that I'd rather appreciate having the appProtocol configurable via a string value, so we don't need to add booleans for each and every use case.