# KEP-NNNN: Modular Cloud Controller Manager Testing

<!-- toc -->
- [Release Signoff Checklist](#release-signoff-checklist)
- [Summary](#summary)
- [Motivation](#motivation)
- [Goals](#goals)
- [Non-Goals](#non-goals)
- [Proposal](#proposal)
- [User Stories (Optional)](#user-stories-optional)
- [Story 1](#story-1)
- [Story 2](#story-2)
- [Notes/Constraints/Caveats (Optional)](#notesconstraintscaveats-optional)
- [Risks and Mitigations](#risks-and-mitigations)
- [Design Details](#design-details)
- [Test Plan](#test-plan)
- [Prerequisite testing updates](#prerequisite-testing-updates)
- [Unit tests](#unit-tests)
- [Integration tests](#integration-tests)
- [e2e tests](#e2e-tests)
- [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria)
- [Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy](#upgrade--downgrade-strategy)
- [Version Skew Strategy](#version-skew-strategy)
- [Production Readiness Review Questionnaire](#production-readiness-review-questionnaire)
- [Feature Enablement and Rollback](#feature-enablement-and-rollback)
- [Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning](#rollout-upgrade-and-rollback-planning)
- [Monitoring Requirements](#monitoring-requirements)
- [Dependencies](#dependencies)
- [Scalability](#scalability)
- [Troubleshooting](#troubleshooting)
- [Implementation History](#implementation-history)
- [Drawbacks](#drawbacks)
- [Alternatives](#alternatives)
- [Infrastructure Needed (Optional)](#infrastructure-needed-optional)
<!-- /toc -->

## Release Signoff Checklist

Items marked with (R) are required *prior to targeting to a milestone / release*.

- [ ] (R) Enhancement issue in release milestone, which links to KEP dir in [kubernetes/enhancements] (not the initial KEP PR)
- [ ] (R) KEP approvers have approved the KEP status as `implementable`
- [ ] (R) Design details are appropriately documented
- [ ] (R) Test plan is in place, giving consideration to SIG Architecture and SIG Testing input (including test refactors)
- [ ] e2e Tests for all Beta API Operations (endpoints)
- [ ] (R) Ensure GA e2e tests meet requirements for [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md)
- [ ] (R) Minimum Two Week Window for GA e2e tests to prove flake free
- [ ] (R) Graduation criteria is in place
- [ ] (R) [all GA Endpoints](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/1806) must be hit by [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md)
- [ ] (R) Production readiness review completed
- [ ] (R) Production readiness review approved
- [ ] "Implementation History" section is up-to-date for milestone
- [ ] User-facing documentation has been created in [kubernetes/website], for publication to [kubernetes.io]
- [ ] Supporting documentation—e.g., additional design documents, links to mailing list discussions/SIG meetings, relevant PRs/issues, release notes

<!--
**Note:** This checklist is iterative and should be reviewed and updated every time this enhancement is being considered for a milestone.
-->

[kubernetes.io]: https://kubernetes.io/
[kubernetes/enhancements]: https://git.k8s.io/enhancements
[kubernetes/kubernetes]: https://git.k8s.io/kubernetes
[kubernetes/website]: https://git.k8s.io/website

## Summary

To support the migration of in-tree cloud controllers to out-of-tree, Kubernetes
should have a common suite of tests that can be exercised with the external cloud
controller managers to ensure the expected the behavior and aid in finding
regressions. Testing cloud controllers requires that infrastructure-specific
operations be performed during the tests to confirm proper execution. To ensure that
testing of external cloud controller managers meets the expectations of the Kubernetes
community, a pattern for allowing dynamic injection of infrastructure-specific
functionality should be created. This enhancement describes an architecture for building
a modular cloud controller manager test interface and workflow for use by cloud
provider implementors in Kubernetes.

## Motivation

<!--
elmiko - WIP, adding as bullet points for now to collect ideas
-->

* in-tree stuff is being removed, this means from the tests also
* previously only tested on aws, gce, gke, want to test on more cloud providers
* testing is limited in functionality due to necessary constraints
* want to establish a workflow that can include more ccms

### Goals

<!--
List the specific goals of the KEP. What is it trying to achieve? How will we
know that this has succeeded?
-->

* define an interface for infrastructure-specific action in the tests
* describe a workflow for integrating tests in k/k with a cloud-provider repo as part of continuous integration
* copy current tests in tests/e2e/cloud, and some in tests/e2e/network (TBD) to a new cloud provider package in tests/e2e/cloud/external, utilizing the new interface for infrastructure-specific action

### Non-Goals

<!--
What is out of scope for this KEP? Listing non-goals helps to focus discussion
and make progress.
-->

* removal of current tests
* implementation of interface for specific cloud providers
* add new tests?

## Proposal

<!--
This is where we get down to the specifics of what the proposal actually is.
This should have enough detail that reviewers can understand exactly what
you're proposing, but should not include things like API designs or
implementation. What is the desired outcome and how do we measure success?.
The "Design Details" section below is for the real
nitty-gritty.
-->

### User Stories (Optional)

<!--
Detail the things that people will be able to do if this KEP is implemented.
Include as much detail as possible so that people can understand the "how" of
the system. The goal here is to make this feel real for users without getting
bogged down.
-->

#### Story 1

#### Story 2

### Notes/Constraints/Caveats (Optional)

<!--
What are the caveats to the proposal?
What are some important details that didn't come across above?
Go in to as much detail as necessary here.
This might be a good place to talk about core concepts and how they relate.
-->

### Risks and Mitigations

<!--
What are the risks of this proposal, and how do we mitigate? Think broadly.
For example, consider both security and how this will impact the larger
Kubernetes ecosystem.

How will security be reviewed, and by whom?

How will UX be reviewed, and by whom?

Consider including folks who also work outside the SIG or subproject.
-->

## Design Details

elmiko notes:
things we need to do
1. enumerate all the current tests that live k/k test/e2e/cloud
* Nodes should be deleted on API server if it doesn't exist in the cloud provider
* Master upgrade should maintain a functioning cluster
* Cluster upgrade should maintain a functioning cluster
* Downgrade should maintain a functioning cluster
* Reboot each node by ordering clean reboot and ensure they function upon restart
* Ensuring the same number of pods are running and ready after restart

2. enumerate possible service tests that live in k/k test/e2e/network
* LoadBalancers should be able to change the type and ports of TCP/UDP service
When a Service is changed from ClusterIP or NodePort to LoadBalancer, CCM provisions a cloud LoadBalancer.
If ports change, CCM updates the LoadBalancer’s forwarding rules.
If service type changes back to ClusterIP or NodePort, CCM ensures the LoadBalancer is deleted.
* LoadBalancers should have session affinity work for LoadBalancer service with Local traffic policy
It interacts with cloud APIs to enable session affinity (e.g., AWS ELB's stickiness policy or GCP's SessionAffinity).
* LoadBalancers should handle load balancer cleanup finalizer for service
CCM is responsible for ensuring that before the service is deleted, the cloud LoadBalancer and associated resources (IP, firewall rules, etc.) are properly cleaned up.
* LoadBalancers should be able to create LoadBalancer Service without NodePort and change it
<<Need to figure out>></Need>
* LoadBalancers should not have connectivity disruption during rolling update with externalTrafficPolicy=Cluster
It updates LoadBalancer backend configurations dynamically as Pods are replaced.
* LoadBalancers should not have connectivity disruption during rolling update with externalTrafficPolicy=Local
During rolling updates, CCM updates the backend nodes dynamically to prevent traffic blackholes.
* LoadBalancers ExternalTrafficPolicy: Local should work for type=LoadBalancer
Can be covered in earlier cases
* LoadBalancers ExternalTrafficPolicy: Local should target all nodes with endpoints
To test it maintains backend target pool
* LoadBalancers ExternalTrafficPolicy: Local should work from pods
To confirm CCM internal pod-to-pod traffic follows the correct LoadBalancer rules.
* Services should be possible to connect to a service via ExternalIP when the external IP is not assigned to a node
If this IP isn’t assigned to any node, CCM ensures traffic is forwarded to the correct backend nodes.
* Services should be able to update service type to NodePort listening on same port number but different protocol
For example, switching from TCP to UDP on the same port may require CCM to reconfigure the LoadBalancer.
* Services should be able to change the type from ExternalName to ClusterIP
<Not sure about this></Not>
* Services should be able to change the type from ExternalName to NodePort
<Not sure about this></Not>
* Services should be able to change the type from ClusterIP to ExternalName
<Not sure about this></Not>
* Services should be able to change the type from NodePort to ExternalName
<Not sure about this></Not>
* Services should support externalTrafficPolicy=Local for type=NodePort
It updates the LoadBalancer to target only nodes with Pods.
* Services should fallback to terminating endpoints when there are no ready endpoints with internalTrafficPolicy=Cluster
This prevents downtime during rolling updates.
* Services should fallback to local terminating endpoints when there are no ready endpoints with internalTrafficPolicy=Local
CCM ensures the LoadBalancer only sends traffic to terminating endpoints if no other healthy Pods exist.
*Services should release NodePorts on delete
NodePorts (if allocated) are also cleaned up as part of this process.
*Service should delete collection of services
If multiple services are deleted together, CCM ensures that all corresponding LoadBalancer resources (external IPs, forwarding rules, firewall rules, etc.) are cleaned up.

4. distill an API for the interface for the tests from the identified tests
<!--
This section should contain enough information that the specifics of your
change are understandable. This may include API specs (though not always
required) or even code snippets. If there's any ambiguity about HOW your
proposal will be implemented, this is the place to discuss them.
-->

### Test Plan

<!--
**Note:** *Not required until targeted at a release.*
The goal is to ensure that we don't accept enhancements with inadequate testing.

All code is expected to have adequate tests (eventually with coverage
expectations). Please adhere to the [Kubernetes testing guidelines][testing-guidelines]
when drafting this test plan.

[testing-guidelines]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-testing/testing.md
-->

[ ] I/we understand the owners of the involved components may require updates to
existing tests to make this code solid enough prior to committing the changes necessary
to implement this enhancement.

##### Prerequisite testing updates

<!--
Based on reviewers feedback describe what additional tests need to be added prior
implementing this enhancement to ensure the enhancements have also solid foundations.
-->

##### Unit tests

<!--
In principle every added code should have complete unit test coverage, so providing
the exact set of tests will not bring additional value.
However, if complete unit test coverage is not possible, explain the reason of it
together with explanation why this is acceptable.
-->

<!--
Additionally, for Alpha try to enumerate the core package you will be touching
to implement this enhancement and provide the current unit coverage for those
in the form of:
- <package>: <date> - <current test coverage>
The data can be easily read from:
https://testgrid.k8s.io/sig-testing-canaries#ci-kubernetes-coverage-unit

This can inform certain test coverage improvements that we want to do before
extending the production code to implement this enhancement.
-->

- `<package>`: `<date>` - `<test coverage>`

##### Integration tests

<!--
Integration tests are contained in k8s.io/kubernetes/test/integration.
Integration tests allow control of the configuration parameters used to start the binaries under test.
This is different from e2e tests which do not allow configuration of parameters.
Doing this allows testing non-default options and multiple different and potentially conflicting command line options.
-->

<!--
This question should be filled when targeting a release.
For Alpha, describe what tests will be added to ensure proper quality of the enhancement.

For Beta and GA, add links to added tests together with links to k8s-triage for those tests:
https://storage.googleapis.com/k8s-triage/index.html
-->

- <test>: <link to test coverage>

##### e2e tests

<!--
This question should be filled when targeting a release.
For Alpha, describe what tests will be added to ensure proper quality of the enhancement.

For Beta and GA, add links to added tests together with links to k8s-triage for those tests:
https://storage.googleapis.com/k8s-triage/index.html

We expect no non-infra related flakes in the last month as a GA graduation criteria.
-->

- <test>: <link to test coverage>

### Graduation Criteria

<!--
**Note:** *Not required until targeted at a release.*

Define graduation milestones.

These may be defined in terms of API maturity, [feature gate] graduations, or as
something else. The KEP should keep this high-level with a focus on what
signals will be looked at to determine graduation.

Consider the following in developing the graduation criteria for this enhancement:
- [Maturity levels (`alpha`, `beta`, `stable`)][maturity-levels]
- [Feature gate][feature gate] lifecycle
- [Deprecation policy][deprecation-policy]

Clearly define what graduation means by either linking to the [API doc
definition](https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/overview/kubernetes-api/#api-versioning)
or by redefining what graduation means.

In general we try to use the same stages (alpha, beta, GA), regardless of how the
functionality is accessed.

[feature gate]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/feature-gates.md
[maturity-levels]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/api_changes.md#alpha-beta-and-stable-versions
[deprecation-policy]: https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/using-api/deprecation-policy/

Below are some examples to consider, in addition to the aforementioned [maturity levels][maturity-levels].

#### Alpha

- Feature implemented behind a feature flag
- Initial e2e tests completed and enabled

#### Beta

- Gather feedback from developers and surveys
- Complete features A, B, C
- Additional tests are in Testgrid and linked in KEP

#### GA

- N examples of real-world usage
- N installs
- More rigorous forms of testing—e.g., downgrade tests and scalability tests
- Allowing time for feedback

**Note:** Generally we also wait at least two releases between beta and
GA/stable, because there's no opportunity for user feedback, or even bug reports,
in back-to-back releases.

**For non-optional features moving to GA, the graduation criteria must include
[conformance tests].**

[conformance tests]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md

#### Deprecation

- Announce deprecation and support policy of the existing flag
- Two versions passed since introducing the functionality that deprecates the flag (to address version skew)
- Address feedback on usage/changed behavior, provided on GitHub issues
- Deprecate the flag
-->

### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy

<!--
If applicable, how will the component be upgraded and downgraded? Make sure
this is in the test plan.

Consider the following in developing an upgrade/downgrade strategy for this
enhancement:
- What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing
cluster required to make on upgrade, in order to maintain previous behavior?
- What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing
cluster required to make on upgrade, in order to make use of the enhancement?
-->

### Version Skew Strategy

<!--
If applicable, how will the component handle version skew with other
components? What are the guarantees? Make sure this is in the test plan.

Consider the following in developing a version skew strategy for this
enhancement:
- Does this enhancement involve coordinating behavior in the control plane and nodes?
- How does an n-3 kubelet or kube-proxy without this feature available behave when this feature is used?
- How does an n-1 kube-controller-manager or kube-scheduler without this feature available behave when this feature is used?
- Will any other components on the node change? For example, changes to CSI,
CRI or CNI may require updating that component before the kubelet.
-->

## Production Readiness Review Questionnaire

<!--

Production readiness reviews are intended to ensure that features merging into
Kubernetes are observable, scalable and supportable; can be safely operated in
production environments, and can be disabled or rolled back in the event they
cause increased failures in production. See more in the PRR KEP at
https://git.k8s.io/enhancements/keps/sig-architecture/1194-prod-readiness.

The production readiness review questionnaire must be completed and approved
for the KEP to move to `implementable` status and be included in the release.

In some cases, the questions below should also have answers in `kep.yaml`. This
is to enable automation to verify the presence of the review, and to reduce review
burden and latency.

The KEP must have a approver from the
[`prod-readiness-approvers`](http://git.k8s.io/enhancements/OWNERS_ALIASES)
team. Please reach out on the
[#prod-readiness](https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/CPNHUMN74) channel if
you need any help or guidance.
-->

### Feature Enablement and Rollback

<!--
This section must be completed when targeting alpha to a release.
-->

###### How can this feature be enabled / disabled in a live cluster?

<!--
Pick one of these and delete the rest.

Documentation is available on [feature gate lifecycle] and expectations, as
well as the [existing list] of feature gates.

[feature gate lifecycle]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/feature-gates.md
[existing list]: https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/command-line-tools-reference/feature-gates/
-->

- [ ] Feature gate (also fill in values in `kep.yaml`)
- Feature gate name:
- Components depending on the feature gate:
- [ ] Other
- Describe the mechanism:
- Will enabling / disabling the feature require downtime of the control
plane?
- Will enabling / disabling the feature require downtime or reprovisioning
of a node?

###### Does enabling the feature change any default behavior?

<!--
Any change of default behavior may be surprising to users or break existing
automations, so be extremely careful here.
-->

###### Can the feature be disabled once it has been enabled (i.e. can we roll back the enablement)?

<!--
Describe the consequences on existing workloads (e.g., if this is a runtime
feature, can it break the existing applications?).

Feature gates are typically disabled by setting the flag to `false` and
restarting the component. No other changes should be necessary to disable the
feature.

NOTE: Also set `disable-supported` to `true` or `false` in `kep.yaml`.
-->

###### What happens if we reenable the feature if it was previously rolled back?

###### Are there any tests for feature enablement/disablement?

<!--
The e2e framework does not currently support enabling or disabling feature
gates. However, unit tests in each component dealing with managing data, created
with and without the feature, are necessary. At the very least, think about
conversion tests if API types are being modified.

Additionally, for features that are introducing a new API field, unit tests that
are exercising the `switch` of feature gate itself (what happens if I disable a
feature gate after having objects written with the new field) are also critical.
You can take a look at one potential example of such test in:
https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/97058/files#diff-7826f7adbc1996a05ab52e3f5f02429e94b68ce6bce0dc534d1be636154fded3R246-R282
-->

### Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning

<!--
This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
-->

###### How can a rollout or rollback fail? Can it impact already running workloads?

<!--
Try to be as paranoid as possible - e.g., what if some components will restart
mid-rollout?

Be sure to consider highly-available clusters, where, for example,
feature flags will be enabled on some API servers and not others during the
rollout. Similarly, consider large clusters and how enablement/disablement
will rollout across nodes.
-->

###### What specific metrics should inform a rollback?

<!--
What signals should users be paying attention to when the feature is young
that might indicate a serious problem?
-->

###### Were upgrade and rollback tested? Was the upgrade->downgrade->upgrade path tested?

<!--
Describe manual testing that was done and the outcomes.
Longer term, we may want to require automated upgrade/rollback tests, but we
are missing a bunch of machinery and tooling and can't do that now.
-->

###### Is the rollout accompanied by any deprecations and/or removals of features, APIs, fields of API types, flags, etc.?

<!--
Even if applying deprecation policies, they may still surprise some users.
-->

### Monitoring Requirements

<!--
This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.

For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
previous answers based on experience in the field.
-->

###### How can an operator determine if the feature is in use by workloads?

<!--
Ideally, this should be a metric. Operations against the Kubernetes API (e.g.,
checking if there are objects with field X set) may be a last resort. Avoid
logs or events for this purpose.
-->

###### How can someone using this feature know that it is working for their instance?

<!--
For instance, if this is a pod-related feature, it should be possible to determine if the feature is functioning properly
for each individual pod.
Pick one more of these and delete the rest.
Please describe all items visible to end users below with sufficient detail so that they can verify correct enablement
and operation of this feature.
Recall that end users cannot usually observe component logs or access metrics.
-->

- [ ] Events
- Event Reason:
- [ ] API .status
- Condition name:
- Other field:
- [ ] Other (treat as last resort)
- Details:

###### What are the reasonable SLOs (Service Level Objectives) for the enhancement?

<!--
This is your opportunity to define what "normal" quality of service looks like
for a feature.

It's impossible to provide comprehensive guidance, but at the very
high level (needs more precise definitions) those may be things like:
- per-day percentage of API calls finishing with 5XX errors <= 1%
- 99% percentile over day of absolute value from (job creation time minus expected
job creation time) for cron job <= 10%
- 99.9% of /health requests per day finish with 200 code

These goals will help you determine what you need to measure (SLIs) in the next
question.
-->

###### What are the SLIs (Service Level Indicators) an operator can use to determine the health of the service?

<!--
Pick one more of these and delete the rest.
-->

- [ ] Metrics
- Metric name:
- [Optional] Aggregation method:
- Components exposing the metric:
- [ ] Other (treat as last resort)
- Details:

###### Are there any missing metrics that would be useful to have to improve observability of this feature?

<!--
Describe the metrics themselves and the reasons why they weren't added (e.g., cost,
implementation difficulties, etc.).
-->

### Dependencies

<!--
This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
-->

###### Does this feature depend on any specific services running in the cluster?

<!--
Think about both cluster-level services (e.g. metrics-server) as well
as node-level agents (e.g. specific version of CRI). Focus on external or
optional services that are needed. For example, if this feature depends on
a cloud provider API, or upon an external software-defined storage or network
control plane.

For each of these, fill in the following—thinking about running existing user workloads
and creating new ones, as well as about cluster-level services (e.g. DNS):
- [Dependency name]
- Usage description:
- Impact of its outage on the feature:
- Impact of its degraded performance or high-error rates on the feature:
-->

### Scalability

<!--
For alpha, this section is encouraged: reviewers should consider these questions
and attempt to answer them.

For beta, this section is required: reviewers must answer these questions.

For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
previous answers based on experience in the field.
-->

###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new API calls?

<!--
Describe them, providing:
- API call type (e.g. PATCH pods)
- estimated throughput
- originating component(s) (e.g. Kubelet, Feature-X-controller)
Focusing mostly on:
- components listing and/or watching resources they didn't before
- API calls that may be triggered by changes of some Kubernetes resources
(e.g. update of object X triggers new updates of object Y)
- periodic API calls to reconcile state (e.g. periodic fetching state,
heartbeats, leader election, etc.)
-->

###### Will enabling / using this feature result in introducing new API types?

<!--
Describe them, providing:
- API type
- Supported number of objects per cluster
- Supported number of objects per namespace (for namespace-scoped objects)
-->

###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new calls to the cloud provider?

<!--
Describe them, providing:
- Which API(s):
- Estimated increase:
-->

###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing size or count of the existing API objects?

<!--
Describe them, providing:
- API type(s):
- Estimated increase in size: (e.g., new annotation of size 32B)
- Estimated amount of new objects: (e.g., new Object X for every existing Pod)
-->

###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing time taken by any operations covered by existing SLIs/SLOs?

<!--
Look at the [existing SLIs/SLOs].

Think about adding additional work or introducing new steps in between
(e.g. need to do X to start a container), etc. Please describe the details.

[existing SLIs/SLOs]: https://git.k8s.io/community/sig-scalability/slos/slos.md#kubernetes-slisslos
-->

###### Will enabling / using this feature result in non-negligible increase of resource usage (CPU, RAM, disk, IO, ...) in any components?

<!--
Things to keep in mind include: additional in-memory state, additional
non-trivial computations, excessive access to disks (including increased log
volume), significant amount of data sent and/or received over network, etc.
This through this both in small and large cases, again with respect to the
[supported limits].

[supported limits]: https://git.k8s.io/community//sig-scalability/configs-and-limits/thresholds.md
-->

###### Can enabling / using this feature result in resource exhaustion of some node resources (PIDs, sockets, inodes, etc.)?

<!--
Focus not just on happy cases, but primarily on more pathological cases
(e.g. probes taking a minute instead of milliseconds, failed pods consuming resources, etc.).
If any of the resources can be exhausted, how this is mitigated with the existing limits
(e.g. pods per node) or new limits added by this KEP?

Are there any tests that were run/should be run to understand performance characteristics better
and validate the declared limits?
-->

### Troubleshooting

<!--
This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.

For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
previous answers based on experience in the field.

The Troubleshooting section currently serves the `Playbook` role. We may consider
splitting it into a dedicated `Playbook` document (potentially with some monitoring
details). For now, we leave it here.
-->

###### How does this feature react if the API server and/or etcd is unavailable?

###### What are other known failure modes?

<!--
For each of them, fill in the following information by copying the below template:
- [Failure mode brief description]
- Detection: How can it be detected via metrics? Stated another way:
how can an operator troubleshoot without logging into a master or worker node?
- Mitigations: What can be done to stop the bleeding, especially for already
running user workloads?
- Diagnostics: What are the useful log messages and their required logging
levels that could help debug the issue?
Not required until feature graduated to beta.
- Testing: Are there any tests for failure mode? If not, describe why.
-->

###### What steps should be taken if SLOs are not being met to determine the problem?

## Implementation History

<!--
Major milestones in the lifecycle of a KEP should be tracked in this section.
Major milestones might include:
- the `Summary` and `Motivation` sections being merged, signaling SIG acceptance
- the `Proposal` section being merged, signaling agreement on a proposed design
- the date implementation started
- the first Kubernetes release where an initial version of the KEP was available
- the version of Kubernetes where the KEP graduated to general availability
- when the KEP was retired or superseded
-->

## Drawbacks

<!--
Why should this KEP _not_ be implemented?
-->

## Alternatives

<!--
What other approaches did you consider, and why did you rule them out? These do
not need to be as detailed as the proposal, but should include enough
information to express the idea and why it was not acceptable.
-->

## Infrastructure Needed (Optional)

<!--
Use this section if you need things from the project/SIG. Examples include a
new subproject, repos requested, or GitHub details. Listing these here allows a
SIG to get the process for these resources started right away.
-->