Code change:
`service`, a client can simply connect to $MYAPP_SERVICE_HOST on port $MYAPP_SERVICE_PORT. <ins> ## Service without selector Services, in addition to providing clean abstraction to access pods, can also abstract any kind of backend: - you want to have an external database cluster in production, but in test you use your own databases. - you want to point your service to a service in another [`namespace`](namespaces.md) or on another cluster. - you are migrating your workload to Kubernetes and some of your backends run outside of Kubernetes. In any of these scenarios you can define a service without a selector: ```json "kind": "Service", "apiVersion": "v1beta1", "id": "myapp", "port": 8765 ``` then you can explicitly map the service to a specific endpoint(s): ```json "kind": "Endpoints", "apiVersion": "v1beta1", "id": "myapp", "endpoints": ["173.194.112.206:80"] ``` Access to the service without a selector works the same as if it had selector. The traffic will be routed to endpoints defined by the user (`173.194.112.206:80` in case of this example). </ins> ## How do they work? Each node in a Kubernetes cluster runs a `service proxy`.  This application

Related discussion:
text: You set the endpoints for your service to the publicIPs of the other service. ----- Original Message -----
, thanks. regarding the last point - I was under impression (based on some other discussion) that there would not be cross namespace interaction? that entities can can access only entities in the same namespace?
Cross-namespace is currently allowed and I think has to be allowed, though perhaps (in the fullness of time) that can be policy based rather than wide open. , abonas wrote:
please see this correspondence. my understanding is that there is isolation
Responded there. I think there's some less-than-crystal-clear words in play. , abonas wrote:
+1 to Eric's comment about ensuring there is a consistent manner for system services like kubernetes-ro, if that's not fixes for all clusters it's going to be a nightmare to write reusable containers for multiple different clusters. I don't care if we do that by using a constant namespace, or by giving system services two different names, but there needs to be at least one name that is constant. Regarding default vs. cluster namespace, I think the issue is one of clutter as a user is starting to understand k8s, you turn up a new cluster, launch a pod, or service, and it's hard to find your one object on the sea of system created pods and services. It's visual clutter that confuses people as they onboard. On Jan 23, 2015 3:01 PM, "Tim Hockin" wrote:
- can you drop me a line (my github name at google) - I want to ask you something, and you have no contact info :) , abonas wrote:
sorry for naive question but why would I care as an user that wants to run its existing workload on Kubernetes about kubernetes-ro ? If I write an application that uses kubernetes-ro then I'm locked into Kubernetes. I understand the need for kubernetes-ro being accessible by cluster level services such as monitoring, logging. I also can imagine that a power user might want to start its own cluster services that use kubernetes-ro. I don't see clearly why would majority of users care about kubernetes-ro being visible from their container.