gloo VS kubernetes-ingress-controller

A similar approach can be seen here: solo.io/gloo

Does it bug anyone else when people come out promoting their "new" thing that has used the name of an existing well established thing? https://github.com/solo-io/gloo like... how hard is it to search and see the name's already taken?

We are a small but rapidly growing startup developing cutting edge Service Mesh and API Gateway solutions for a sizable list of production customers. We are known in the community for our open source API Gateway and service mesh management plane as well as our enterprise product offerings.

Kong Ingress Controller for Kubernetes

Here you go! https://github.com/Kong/kubernetes-ingress-controller/issues/729

The key to handling modern dynamic, scalable workloads in Kubernetes is a networking stack that can deliver API management, a service mesh and an ingress controller. Kong Ingress Controller allows users to manage the routing rules that control external user access to the service in a Kubernetes cluster from the same platform.

For those organizations using Kubernetes for their container orchestration, Kong created the Kong Ingress Controller which implements authentication, transformations, and other functionalities (via plugins) across Kubernetes clusters. Kong Ingress Controller updates a standard Kubernetes implementation as shown below:

This article will walk through how easy it is to set up the open source Kong Ingress Controller as a Kubernetes API gateway on a cluster.

But here is the tricky part. There are lots of Ingress Controllers available. Some of them are opensource, but some of them are paid one. For this project I’ve chosen an “official” Kubernetes Ingress Controller based on Nginx. But please be not confused with another one, also based on Nginx but created by NGINX Inc - this one is paid. Apart from these both there are also other* Ingress Controller*s available like Kong Ingress, or Traefik.