Conversation
|
🚀 Deployed on https://preview-277--hedgehog-docs.netlify.app |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Updates the Gateway peering user guide to reflect the newer NAT API and adds clearer guidance/examples for stateful NAT and port-forwarding, addressing #275.
Changes:
- Reworked the NAT sections to distinguish static (stateless) NAT vs stateful NAT, with updated YAML examples.
- Added explicit warning callout about not peering the same entities via fabric + gateway simultaneously.
- Expanded external peering documentation with a detailed end-to-end example using masquerade + port-forwarding.
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
edipascale
force-pushed
the
ema/gw-peerings-redux
branch
from
ce37a65 to
36f7aed
Compare
mrbojangles3
left a comment
mrbojangles3
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks good to me. I like the example at the end. I haven't tested the instructions
Fredi-raspall
left a comment
Fredi-raspall
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd like to clarify the comment of the port-ranges. Otherwise it looks good!
edipascale
force-pushed
the
ema/gw-peerings-redux
branch
2 times, most recently
from
a3d93f4 to
8aec1c7
Compare
edipascale
force-pushed
the
ema/gw-peerings-redux
branch
from
8aec1c7 to
a853b23
Compare
qmonnet
left a comment
qmonnet
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good overall, with some minor comments inline below.
Tip for next time: review would be much easier if you had one commit to remove the outdated subsections, and then a separate commit to add the new documentation.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Di Pascale <emanuele@githedgehog.com>
edipascale
force-pushed
the
ema/gw-peerings-redux
branch
from
a853b23 to
ec3d0d3
Compare
qmonnet
left a comment
qmonnet
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me, thanks a lot! Just one nit below, you're free to fix or to hit the merge button without addressing it.
As a side note I'm not sure why you discarded the previous approvals from Fredi and Logan - I'd only do that if someone had requested changes and wasn't available to review again. Otherwise, if the changes are not trivial, I'd just hit the 🔁 “Re-request review” button near reviewers' names on the top-right corner of the page, so that they get a notification that a new review is requested from them.
|
I did not dismiss any review manually, github did that when I rebased on top of the latest master and force-pushed, I guess 🤷🏼 |
Oh, sorry then. There's an option in the branch protection rules about that, I guess (but can't check) it's enabled on this repo 
I don't think it's particularly useful but I'll discuss it with Sergei once he's back. |
Fix #275