kube-linter VS conduit

Kustomize: It provides a solution to customize the Kubernetes resource base configuration and differential configuration without template and DSL. It does not solve the constraint problem itself, but needs to cooperate with a large number of additional tools to check constraints, such as Kube-linter, Checkov and kubescape.

Kube linter would be a first citizen for your need https://github.com/stackrox/kube-linter. If you use Helm would be Helm linter as well. Kube score is another interesting tool offering you best practices patterns. I usually develop with vscode and have a Yaml + Kubernetes extension. These could be enough to help you get through. Nevertheless, consider adopting a skaffold with a k3s for a faster feedback on the local dev lifecycle.

Another great tool is KubeLinter which checks for a lot of helpful stuff, including dangling references. This is nice, but it is a command-line tool, so I don't get live feedback in my editor.

It is always a good practice to scan your Kubernetes deployment or Helm chart before deploying. We can use Checkov to scans Kubernetes manifests and identifies security and configuration issues. It also supports Helm chart scanning. We can also use terrascan and kubeLinter to scan the Kubernetes manifest.

Verify it with manifest verification tools (kubeval or kube-linter).

Its worth mentioning about Kube-linter (https://github.com/stackrox/kube-linter) its FOSS and has a very minimal and effective set of commands

Leverage a service mesh like Istio or Linkerd to manage communication between microservices within the Kubernetes cluster. These service meshes can be configured to intercept JMX traffic and enforce access control policies. Benefits:

Looks like CNCF waved them through Graduation anyway, let's look at policies from July 28, 2021 when they were deemed "Graduated"

All maintainers of the LinkerD project had @boyant.io email addresses. [0] They do list 4 other members of a "Steering Committee", but LinkerD's GOVERNANCE.md gives all of the power to maintainers: [1]

> Ideally, all project decisions are resolved by maintainer consensus. If this is not possible, maintainers may call a vote. The voting process is a simple majority in which each maintainer receives one vote.

And CNCF Graduation policy says a project must "Have committers from at least two organizations" [2]. So it appears that the CNCF accepted the "Steering Committee" as an acceptable 2nd committer, even though the Governance policy still gave the maintainers all of the power.

I would like to know if the Steering Committee voted to remove stable releases from an un-biased position acting in the best interest of the project, or if they were simply ignored or not even advised on the decision.

I'm all for Boyant doing what they need to do to make money and survive as a Company. But at that point my opinion is that they should withdraw the project from the CNCF and stop pretending like the foundation has any influence on the project's governance.

[0] https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd2/blob/489ca1e3189b6a5289d...

From here, we can explore other developments and tutorials on Kubernetes, such as o11y or observability (PLG, ELK, ELF, TICK, Jaeger, Pyroscope), service mesh (Linkerd, Istio, NSM, Consul Connect, Cillium), and progressive delivery (ArgoCD, FluxCD, Spinnaker).

https://linkerd.io/ is a much lighter-weight alternative but you do still get some of the fancy things like mtls without needing any manual configuration. Install it, label your namespaces, and let it do it's thing!

Would it be possible to create a custom extension with the code that authorize traffic based on my custom access token?

Open source API Gateway (Apache APISIX and Traefik), Service Mesh (Istio and Linkerd) solutions are capable of doing traffic splitting and implementing functionalities like Canary Release and Blue-Green deployment. With canary testing, you can make a critical examination of a new release of an API by selecting only a small portion of your user base. We will cover the canary release next section.

I have experimented with other service meshes and I was able to get up to speed quickly: Linkerd = 1 day, Istio = 3 days, NGINX Service Mesh = 5 days, but Consul Connect service mesh took at least 11 days to get off the ground. This is by far the most complex solution available.

https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd2 (random example)

Out of the number of service mesh solutions that exist, the most popular open source ones are: Linkerd, Istio, and Consul. Here at Koyeb, we are using Kuma.