Operator for AlloyDB?

[adamstrawson]

Are there any plans to create an operator for alloydb-auth-proxy too?

If it's on the roadmap, but no plans yet, I'm happy to take on the work needed to make it happen, (Potentially just fork this operator and tailor it more for AlloyDB)

[enocom]

Thanks for the request. We do have it on the roadmap, but not until next year given the current load.

We split the Connectors into two code bases because we anticipate that they'll diverge over time. For the operator here, though, I suspect we'll possibly want to extend this project to support AlloyDB using the same code paths because the two Proxy interfaces are almost identical. How we do that without any breaking changes and with updating the name to be more generic (maybe db-proxy-operator?) is still an open question.

[hessjcg]

Hi all. Please comment or upvote if this is important to you. I have pinned this issue to the top of the Issues list.

[chobostar]

Since AlloyDB doesn't support non-RFC 1918 IP ranges for access: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/291966450
and by today AlloyDB doesn't support Public IP.

For some environments alloydb-auth-proxy could be the only proper way to connect.

Operator could simplify workloads migration, manual work of alloydb-auth-proxy adopting and keep unify method for both CloudSQL/AlloyDB client applications

UPD. If you approve and OK with using the same operator for cloudsql and alloydb, I could make PR proposal.

[ttosta-google]

Thanks for the interest. We're still considering this work, but aren't accepting PRs for it.

AlloyDB now supports Public IP. See documentation.

[hessjcg]

We are tracking AlloyDB Proxy feature in #250. I'll close this as a duplicate. I'll note your interest on that issue.