Skip to content

added byoip support for load balancer and nat-gateway - #1873

Merged
DO-rrao merged 4 commits into
digitalocean:mainfrom
rbhatia-code:rbhatia/LBAAS-4168-byoip-lb-nat-gateway
Jul 30, 2026
Merged

added byoip support for load balancer and nat-gateway#1873
DO-rrao merged 4 commits into
digitalocean:mainfrom
rbhatia-code:rbhatia/LBAAS-4168-byoip-lb-nat-gateway

Conversation

@rbhatia-code

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

No description provided.

@rbhatia-code
rbhatia-code marked this pull request as ready for review July 23, 2026 22:36
@@ -104,6 +104,8 @@ With the load-balancer command, you can list, create, or delete load balancers,
AddStringFlag(cmdLoadBalancerCreate, doctl.ArgLoadBalancerNetworkStack, "", "", "The network stack type determines the allocation of ipv4/ipv6 addresses to the load balancer, e.g.: `IPV4` or `DUALSTACK`"+
" (NOTE: this feature is in private preview, contact DigitalOcean support to review its public availability.)")

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: Small inconsistency between the two new bits: the NAT gateway path guards with if ip != "" while the LB path just does r.IP = ip unconditionally. Both are correct today (the field is omitempty), but if someone ever wires --ip into the LB update command down the line, that unconditional assignment would quietly start sending ip on updates, which the API treats as create-only. A if ip != "" guard (or a one-line comment noting it's create-only) would make that intent obvious and future-proof.

@DO-rrao DO-rrao left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@DO-rrao
DO-rrao merged commit 018bd7f into digitalocean:main Jul 30, 2026
9 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants