The swap of Traffic for Traffic-Icebox in this ticket's set of tags was based on a bulk action for all tickets that aren't are neither part of our current planned work nor clearly a recent, higher-priority emergent issue. This is simply one step in a larger task cleanup effort. Further triage of these tickets (and especially, organizing future potential project ideas from them into a new medium) will occur afterwards! For more detail, have a look at the extended explanation on the main page of Traffic-Icebox . Thank you!

@Vgutierrez Since there is a project to replace LVS in the horizon, is this still worth pursuing?

Removing SRE, has already been triaged to a more specific SRE subteam

Another approach is to put them in a distinct namespace (one without a default route) see T114979: Run IPVS in a separate network namespace

In T286924#8717679, @ayounsi wrote:

Another approach is to put them in a distinct namespace (one without a default route) see T114979: Run IPVS in a separate network namespace

My own instincts would be to avoid all that complexity. Definitely an interesting suggestion, but given we are working towards a new L4LB I think maybe such a major change is best avoided.

A simple blackhole route for each range with high metric ought to do the trick?