skopeo VS conduit

I decided to go searching for an alternative means to pull a docker image. In my search I discovered Skopeo, an alternative method to download Docker images that proved to be surprisingly effective. It not only downloaded the image faster, it also allowed me to save my image in a tar file, which means you can pull an image on one system and share that image to another system, loading it easily to docker instance on that system. This can be very beneficial if you have multiple systems and don't want to download an image multiple times.

But I'd suggest looking into if it's solved by other tools already, like regclient/regclient and their regsync features or something like containers/skopeo.

Have a use case where we have a CLI (built with cobra) for our dev teams which can execute common tasks. One of those tasks we want to implement is to copy docker images from the internet to our internal registry. A tool such as skopeo can do this and much more. Instead of essentially re-writing the functionality directly into our CLI we'd like to embed it. This would also negate the need for the dev teams to manage multiple CLI tools.

Self hoisting here, I put this together to make it easier to generate single (extra) layer docker images without needing a docker agent, capabilities, chroot, etc: https://github.com/andrewbaxter/dinker

Caveat: it doesn't work on Fly.io. They seem to be having some issue with OCI manifests: https://github.com/containers/skopeo/issues/1881 . They're also having issues with new docker versions pushing from CI: https://community.fly.io/t/deploying-to-fly-via-github-actio... ... the timing of this post seems weird.

FWIW the article says

> create a Docker image, also known as an OCI image

I don't think this is quite right. From my investigation, Docker and OCI images are basically content addressed trees, starting with a root manifest that points to other files and their hashes (root -> images -> layers -> layer configs + files). The OCI manifests and configs are separate to Docker manifests and configs and basically Docker will support both side by side.

skopeo is another tool worth looking into. we've started deploying amd and arm nodes into our k8s clusters, and this tool was incredibly easy to build around for getting multi-arch images into our container registry.

I would use skopeo, the tool is quite handy for working with remote images. https://github.com/containers/skopeo

Using distroless images not only reduces the size of the container image it also reduces the surface attack. The need for container image signing is because even with the distroless images there is a chance of facing some security threats such as receiving a malicious image. We can use cosign or skopeo for container signing and verifying. You can read more about securing containers with Cosign and Distroless Images in this blog.

Look at using tools like skopeo or crane

You could try some commandline tool like skopeo to fetch the image tags regularly and do some shell magic to notify you on any change you want

This is what Podman, an open-source daemonless and rootless container engine, was developed with in mind. Podman runs using the runC container runtime process, directly on the Linux kernel, and launches containers and pods as child processes. In addition, it was developed for the Docker developer, with most commands and syntax seamlessly mirroring Docker's. Buildah, an image builder, and Skopeo, the image utility tool, are both complimentary to Podman as well, and extend the range of operations able to be performed.

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.