Outscale Load Balancer IP: Fixing The 'ID Vs. IP' Puzzle

by Admin 57 views
Outscale Load Balancer IP: Fixing the 'ID vs. IP' Puzzle Hey folks! Ever been scratching your head, wondering why something that *should* be simple in your Kubernetes setup on Outscale Cloud turns into a head-scratcher? Well, if you're working with *Outscale Load Balancers* and trying to assign a *fixed public IP* using the `osc-load-balancer-ip-id` annotation, you might have hit a snag. We're talking about a classic case of documentation saying one thing and reality doing another – specifically, whether that crucial annotation needs an *allocation ID* (like `eipalloc-xxxxxxxx`, a unique identifier for an Elastic IP) or the *actual public IP address* itself (like `1.2.3.4`, the numerical address). This seemingly minor detail can throw a massive wrench into your carefully planned deployments, leading to frustrating `InvalidParameterValue` errors and stalling your progress. It's a situation that not only delays crucial infrastructure provisioning but also undermines the confidence in automation, forcing manual interventions where none should be needed. Understanding this specific pitfall is paramount for anyone deploying production-grade applications on Outscale Kubernetes, aiming for stability, predictability, and seamless integration with external services that depend on consistent network endpoints. Let's dive deep into this mystery, dissecting the technical nuances, uncovering the root cause of the problem, and, most importantly, providing you with actionable insights and solutions to get you back to smooth sailing with your Kubernetes services on Outscale Cloud. This article will serve as your comprehensive guide to navigating this specific `osc-load-balancer-ip-id` puzzle, ensuring your applications get the stable public IPs they deserve without unnecessary headaches. # Understanding the Outscale Cloud Provider for Kubernetes Alright, *guys*, before we get into the nitty-gritty of the `osc-load-balancer-ip-id` issue, let's set the stage and truly grasp the environment we're operating in. If you're running Kubernetes clusters on the *Outscale cloud*, you're almost certainly leveraging the *Outscale Cloud Provider (CCM)*, also known as the Cloud Controller Manager. This incredibly vital component is the unsung hero that enables your Kubernetes cluster to deeply understand and interact seamlessly with the underlying Outscale infrastructure. Think of the CCM as the essential translator and orchestrator between your declarative Kubernetes manifest files and the complex array of Outscale's powerful APIs. When you, as a developer or operations engineer, declare a Kubernetes *Service of type LoadBalancer* in your YAML, it's the CCM's sophisticated job to intercept that request, translate it into Outscale-specific API calls, provision a real, tangible load balancer on Outscale, assign it an appropriate IP address, and meticulously manage its entire lifecycle—from creation to updates and eventual deletion. This deep, native integration is exceptionally powerful because it elegantly abstracts away the intricate, cloud-specific details, empowering you to define your desired application state in a more standardized and often cloud-agnostic way. However, as with any sophisticated integration, sometimes these connections have little quirks, subtle inconsistencies, or unexpected behaviors, and that, *folks*, is precisely what we're dissecting today with the `osc-load-balancer-ip-id` annotation. The overarching goal here is invariably to ensure your applications are *highly available*, resilient, and readily *accessible* to the outside world, and having a *stable, fixed public IP* for your Load Balancer is frequently a non-negotiable, critical requirement for many robust production setups, enabling consistent DNS records, firewall rules, and reliable external integrations. This is precisely where the `osc-load-balancer-ip-id` annotation steps in, promising to give you that precise, fine-grained control over which *Outscale public IP* your service will ultimately use, a feature that, *in theory*, offers immense value. But as we'll soon discover, the journey from theory to flawless practice can sometimes be a bit bumpy, especially when dealing with specific parameters like `eipalloc-xxxxxxxx` (the allocation ID) versus a direct `1.2.3.4` (the actual public IP address). Understanding the CCM's role and its interface with Outscale's network services is fundamental to debugging and resolving such critical infrastructure challenges. # The `osc-load-balancer-ip-id` Annotation: What's the Confusion? So, *what's the big deal* with this `osc-load-balancer-ip-id` annotation, you ask, and why is it causing so much head-scratching within the Outscale Kubernetes community? Well, *this particular Kubernetes annotation* is meticulously designed to empower you to specify an *existing, pre-allocated Outscale Public IP* for your `LoadBalancer` service, rather than letting the cloud provider dynamically assign a new one each time. The underlying idea behind this feature is nothing short of brilliant: instead of the Cloud Controller Manager (CCM) provisioning a new, potentially random, and often changing public IP address every single time your service is deployed or updated, you gain the crucial ability to reuse a static, dedicated IP address that you've already provisioned and carefully configured within your Outscale account. This capability is absolutely critical for a multitude of scenarios where a *stable and unchanging entry point* to your application is paramount, such as configuring resilient DNS records that point to a consistent IP, establishing strict firewall rules that whitelist specific addresses, or integrating with various external services that rigorously rely on a consistent IP address for communication and security. The *official documentation* for the Outscale Cloud Provider, which is typically our first point of reference and guidance, clearly suggests and implicitly leads users to believe that this annotation should readily accept the *allocation ID* of the Elastic IP (EIP) you wish to utilize. You know, those distinctive, unique alphanumeric identifiers, typically formatted like `eipalloc-xxxxxxxx`, that Outscale thoughtfully assigns to every single allocated public IP address within your infrastructure. This approach makes perfect logical sense from a cloud resource management perspective, as using a stable, internal ID is generally considered a more robust, reliable, and canonical way to refer to cloud resources than relying on the IP address itself, which, in certain edge cases or less static contexts, could theoretically be reassigned or involve other subtle complexities. Consequently, developers and operators, diligently following the official documentation, would naturally proceed to grab the `eipalloc-xxxxxxxx` ID directly from their Outscale console or through programmatic API calls and then confidently plug it right into their Kubernetes `Service` manifest, expecting a smooth provisioning process. However, *guys*, this is precisely where the *inconsistency* frustratingly rears its head and causes a significant roadblock. Instead of gracefully accepting the `eipalloc-xxxxxxxx` allocation ID as documented and expected, the underlying Outscale Cloud Controller Manager actually, and unexpectedly, demands the *actual public IP address itself* – yes, the familiar dotted-decimal `1.2.3.4` format. This profound and critical discrepancy directly leads to the dreaded `InvalidParameterValue` error during the load balancer creation phase, completely blocking your deployment and preventing your service from becoming externally accessible. It's a classic "expectation vs. reality" moment that can be incredibly frustrating, especially when you've meticulously followed every instruction *by the book*. This isn't merely a minor annoyance or a cosmetic bug; it fundamentally represents a significant roadblock that directly prevents the seamless *fixed IP assignment* functionality and tragically necessitates cumbersome manual intervention or the creation of complex workarounds, both of which are highly undesirable in modern, automated, and declarative infrastructure environments. # Reproducing the Error: A Step-by-Step Breakdown Alright, *team*, let's walk through how this `osc-load-balancer-ip-id` issue typically manifests in a real-world scenario, leaving many Kubernetes users on Outscale Cloud scratching their heads. If you've ever encountered this particular problem, you've likely followed what appeared to be a perfectly logical, well-documented, and indeed, standard operational procedure. The *steps to reproduce* this perplexing bug are actually quite straightforward, and meticulously understanding each one is absolutely crucial, not only for confirming the existence of the problem but also, ultimately, for guiding us towards an effective and permanent solution. First and foremost, your journey would typically begin by allocating an *Elastic IP (EIP)* within your Outscale account, which is a standard procedure for securing a stable public IP. Upon successful allocation, Outscale would furnish you with both a *public IP address* (for instance, `192.0.2.10`, a human-readable numerical address) and its corresponding, unique *allocation ID* (such as `eipalloc-abcdef12`, an internal system identifier). Following what is considered common, best practice for cloud resource referencing, and crucially, what the official documentation strongly implies, your next logical and entirely reasonable step would be to craft a Kubernetes `Service` manifest, explicitly defining it as `type: LoadBalancer`. Within this manifest, you would then confidently embed the critical annotation: `service.beta.kubernetes.io/osc-load-balancer-ip-id: eipalloc-abcdef12`. This declaration, according to the documentation, should signal to the Outscale Cloud Controller Manager (CCM) exactly which pre-allocated Elastic IP to bind to your new LoadBalancer. You would then proceed to apply this manifest using your trusted `kubectl apply -f your-service.yaml` command, expecting Kubernetes to initiate the provisioning process. At this critical juncture, you would rightfully expect Kubernetes to seamlessly communicate with the Outscale CCM, and for the CCM to, in turn, provision an Outscale Load Balancer that is correctly configured to utilize your specified Elastic IP identified by its allocation ID. However, instead of witnessing a smooth, successful provisioning event, you would quite rapidly observe a *load balancer creation failure*, accompanied by alarming error messages. When you meticulously inspect the Kubernetes events using `kubectl describe service my-app-loadbalancer` or delve into the CCM logs (which requires accessing the controller manager pod), you would be unequivocally greeted with a `400 Bad Request` error message, often coupled with the highly specific and informative error details: `CreateLoadBalancer returned 4196/InvalidParameterValue (The provided value 'eipalloc-xxxxxxxx' for parameter 'PublicIp' is invalid.)`. This particular error message, *guys*, is the absolute smoking gun, unequivocally indicating that the `eipalloc-xxxxxxxx` value, which is undeniably an *allocation ID*, is fundamentally not what the `PublicIp` parameter within Outscale's underlying API is expecting. Instead, the error message clearly and frustratingly hints that it is strictly demanding the *actual public IP address* itself. This is a profound and crucial distinction that can unfortunately lead to significant delays, extensive troubleshooting efforts, and considerable frustration for developers and operations teams alike. The *expected behavior*, based entirely on the provided documentation, is that the `allocation ID` should function flawlessly, offering a clean, robust, and programmatic way to reference pre-allocated cloud resources. The *actual behavior*, however, is a categorical rejection of this ID, demanding the raw, numerical IP address. This critical difference is not merely semantic; it fundamentally alters how you must interact with the annotation and, consequently, with the Outscale cloud provider itself, breaking the declarative model. It exemplifies how a seemingly small inconsistency in an API or its wrapper can have a cascading ripple effect throughout a complex, automated system like Kubernetes, impeding efficient infrastructure management. ### The Documentation vs. Reality Clash This specific `osc-load-balancer-ip-id` issue vividly highlights a pervasive and often frustrating pain point in the fast-evolving landscape of cloud-native development: the perennial *documentation vs. reality clash*. When the official guides, which are meant to be the authoritative source of truth, suggest one perfectly valid and logical way of doing things, and the actual implementation of the system unequivocally demands another, it inevitably generates a tremendous amount of confusion, wasted effort, and significant delays for developers and operations teams. For the `osc-load-balancer-ip-id` annotation, the documentation’s clear and explicit emphasis on "the ID of the public IP to use" naturally and reasonably directs users towards employing the `eipalloc-` string, which is the standard identifier format for Elastic IPs in Outscale. This approach is not only intuitive but also entirely consistent with how many other prominent cloud providers (like AWS, Azure, GCP, etc.) handle resource referencing – typically by their unique, stable, and immutable IDs rather than relying on more ephemeral or potentially less precise values like raw IP addresses. Resource IDs are designed to be the canonical reference. However, the *Outscale Cloud Controller Manager (CCM)*, when it processes this annotation, is internally making a direct call to an underlying Outscale API method that specifically expects a `PublicIp` parameter. And that particular parameter, as the crystal-clear error message from our reproduction steps unequivocally states, is strictly looking for a literal IP address in the `1.2.3.4` format, *not* an `eipalloc-` ID. This isn't necessarily indicative of a fundamental bug in the Outscale API itself; rather, it points to a critical *inconsistency* in how the CCM, which acts as the crucial abstraction layer, interprets, validates, and ultimately translates the user-provided annotation value to the specific requirements of the underlying Outscale API call. It implies a significant mismatch or a missing translation step within the CCM’s logic that is supposed to bridge the gap between user intent and API execution. Rectifying this critical issue fundamentally requires one of two clear paths: either an immediate and robust update to the CCM’s codebase to correctly resolve the `eipalloc-` ID to its corresponding public IP address *before* making the API call (thereby maintaining the user experience as documented), or, alternatively, a very clear, unambiguous, and prominently displayed update to the official documentation to explicitly state that the *public IP address itself*, and *not the allocation ID*, is the mandatory and expected input for this annotation. Without one of these crucial clarifications or fixes, users will unfortunately continue to encounter this frustrating and blocking error, leading to avoidable frustration, inefficient deployments, and a decrease in overall developer productivity. This is precisely why addressing such inconsistencies quickly and decisively is absolutely paramount for fostering a positive and efficient developer experience within the Outscale ecosystem. # Why This Inconsistency Matters for Your Deployments You might be tempted to think, "Okay, so I just use the IP address instead of the ID. It's a simple change, what's the big deal?" And while it sounds like a minor tweak in theory, *guys*, this seemingly small inconsistency with the `osc-load-balancer-ip-id` annotation has some pretty significant, far-reaching ripple effects on how you effectively manage your Kubernetes deployments and their associated networking components on Outscale Cloud. First and foremost, it fundamentally *breaks the principle of least surprise* – a core and highly valued tenet in software design and user experience. When official documentation, which is diligently maintained to guide users, clearly leads you down one logical and expected path, and the actual system then throws an error, abruptly telling you to do something entirely different, it not only causes immediate frustration but also significantly erodes trust in the platform and dramatically slows down critical development and deployment cycles. Developers and operations teams inherently expect consistency and predictability, especially when they are dealing with foundational infrastructure components like *load balancers* and the assignment of *fixed public IPs*. This isn't just about a single, isolated annotation; it deeply impacts the overall *developer experience*, the efficiency of *CI/CD pipelines*, and the reliability of automated infrastructure provisioning. Imagine trying to automate your infrastructure deployments where scripts are meticulously designed to fetch `eipalloc-` IDs, aiming for robustness and adherence to documented standards, only to have these automated processes consistently fail at a critical provisioning step due with an `InvalidParameterValue` error. You are then forced to introduce an entirely new, potentially complex, and error-prone extra step into your automation to dynamically resolve that allocation ID to an actual IP address before it can be used, thereby injecting unnecessary complexity and introducing additional potential points of failure into your otherwise smooth and automated workflow. Furthermore, from a best practices standpoint, directly relying on the literal *public IP address* string in your configuration can be marginally more fragile and less canonical than consistently using an *allocation ID*. While an Elastic IP address in Outscale is inherently static once it has been allocated, referencing it by its `eipalloc-` ID is almost universally considered a more robust, stable, and internal method in mature cloud environments. IDs serve as immutable, unique identifiers for a specific resource instance, whereas an IP address, while stable for EIPs, *could* theoretically be deallocated and subsequently reallocated to a different resource (even if rarely in the context of persistent static IPs), creating potential for confusion or unintended resource binding if not meticulously managed. This minor yet significant difference might not present an immediate, glaring issue for a single, manually configured service, but when you are tasked with managing dozens, or even hundreds, of critical services across multiple diverse environments (development, staging, production), such inconsistencies rapidly scale into major operational headaches and technical debt. It necessitates tedious *manual lookups* or requires the development of additional, bespoke *scripting* to accurately retrieve the public IP from its corresponding ID, which is precisely the kind of low-level, cloud-specific detail that sophisticated cloud providers and their respective Cloud Controller Managers are designed to abstract away from the end-user. Ultimately, this annotation discrepancy directly *blocks the seamless and declarative assignment of fixed IPs via the Cloud Controller Manager*, rendering your critical infrastructure deployments less predictable, harder to automate effectively, and significantly more cumbersome to maintain over the long term. It is indeed a small detail with a *profound and far-reaching impact* on the reliability, maintainability, and overall operational efficiency of your Kubernetes ecosystem on Outscale. # Practical Workarounds and What to Do Now Alright, so you're feeling a bit stuck, *guys*, and your Kubernetes `LoadBalancer` service isn't coming up as expected, all thanks to this puzzling `osc-load-balancer-ip-id` annotation issue. The good news is, you don't have to wait for an official fix or a documentation update to get your deployments moving again; there are *practical and immediate workarounds* you can implement right now to navigate this challenge effectively. The most straightforward and indeed, the most effective solution, directly informed by the `InvalidParameterValue` error message we've discussed, is to simply bypass the allocation ID entirely and instead provide the *actual public IP address* itself in the annotation. So, let's say you've provisioned an Outscale Elastic IP which has an allocation ID of `eipalloc-xxxxxxxx` (for instance, `eipalloc-4a6c8b0e`) and its corresponding public IP address is `192.0.2.10`. Instead of using the allocation ID, you would modify your Kubernetes `Service` manifest to directly include the numerical IP address, like so: ```yaml apiVersion: v1 kind: Service metadata: name: my-app-loadbalancer annotations: service.beta.kubernetes.io/osc-load-balancer-ip-id: "192.0.2.10" # <-- Crucial change: Use the actual IP address here! spec: type: LoadBalancer selector: app: my-app ports: - protocol: TCP port: 80 targetPort: 8080 ``` _Notice the pivotal change here_: we are now explicitly placing the direct `"192.0.2.10"` string into the `service.beta.kubernetes.io/osc-load-balancer-ip-id` annotation. To obtain this specific public IP address, you'll have a couple of reliable methods at your disposal. You can either visually look it up in your Outscale console under the "Elastic IPs" section, where each allocated EIP clearly displays both its allocation ID and its associated public IP. Alternatively, for a more automated approach, you can leverage the *Outscale CLI* (or similar API tools) to programmatically query the `eipalloc-xxxxxxxx` ID and meticulously extract its associated public IP address. For instance, using a command-line tool like `osc-cli`, you might execute something along the lines of `osc ReadPublicIps --public-ip-ids eipalloc-xxxxxxxx | jq -r '.[0].PublicIp'`. This powerful command would fetch the detailed information of your specific Elastic IP and then, using `jq`, precisely extract just the public IP address string. Once you successfully retrieve that public IP, you can confidently update your `Service` manifest and reapply it using `kubectl apply`. This temporary yet effective fix will allow your *Outscale Load Balancer* to provision successfully, correctly binding to your desired *fixed public IP address*. While this workaround undeniably functions, it does introduce a minor manual step or necessitates an additional preceding script within your CI/CD pipeline to dynamically resolve the ID to an IP, which, as we've discussed, isn't ideal for truly seamless and fully automated infrastructure provisioning. However, it is an absolutely solid and *immediate solution* to unblock your critical deployments and ensure your services become externally accessible without undue delay. The excellent news is that once the Load Balancer is successfully created with the correct IP address, it should remain stable and continue to function as intended. Just remember, *guys*, that every time you intend to provision a new service with a fixed IP using this annotation, you'll need to conscientiously follow this process of explicitly using the public IP address until the underlying CCM or its official documentation is comprehensively updated to match and resolve this critical inconsistency. This proactive workaround is absolutely crucial for maintaining operational continuity and ensuring your vital services are exposed to the internet precisely as intended, without being held back by a platform-level discrepancy. ### A Glimpse into the Future: Expected Behavior and Ideal Fixes Looking ahead, *guys*, the ideal and most user-friendly resolution for this `osc-load-balancer-ip-id` puzzle fundamentally involves one of two clear developmental paths – or perhaps even both, for maximum flexibility and unequivocal clarity within the Outscale Kubernetes ecosystem. The unequivocally *expected behavior*, based entirely on the existing and widely referenced documentation, is that the annotation `service.beta.kubernetes.io/osc-load-balancer-ip-id` should, without any ambiguity, robustly and reliably accept the *allocation ID* (e.g., `eipalloc-xxxxxxxx`). This approach not only aligns perfectly with established common cloud provider practices, where critical resources are almost universally referenced by their unique, immutable, and persistent IDs, but it also provides a more programmatic and less error-prone way of interacting with cloud infrastructure. To truly achieve this desired state, the *Outscale Cloud Controller Manager (CCM)* would necessitate a significant and targeted update to its core logic. This crucial update would involve enhancing the CCM's internal mechanisms so that, upon receiving an `eipalloc-xxxxxxxx` value in the annotation, it would intelligently perform an internal lookup (via Outscale's APIs) to meticulously resolve that specific *allocation ID* to its corresponding *public IP address* before it ever proceeds to make the `CreateLoadBalancer` API call to the Outscale backend. This sophisticated approach would render the CCM much more intelligent, intuitive, and user-friendly, as it would effectively abstract away the underlying Outscale API's specific requirement for a direct IP address. Consequently, the end-user would continue to use the allocation ID as initially documented and expected, and the CCM would seamlessly and transparently handle the necessary translation behind the scenes, ensuring a smooth and error-free provisioning process. Alternatively, if for some compelling reason (perhaps due to inherent limitations of the Outscale API, considerations of performance, internal architectural decisions, or perceived complexity in implementing an ID-to-IP resolution logic), the CCM maintainers decide against implementing such an intelligent lookup, then the *official documentation must be updated* immediately, clearly, and unequivocally. The updated documentation should explicitly and prominently state that the `osc-load-balancer-ip-id` annotation strictly expects the *public IP address itself* (e.g., `1.2.3.4`) and *not* the *allocation ID*. This revision would effectively manage user expectations correctly from the very outset, thereby preventing the considerable confusion, frustration, and cascading errors that many users have already encountered. Ideally, the most comprehensive and user-centric solution would involve a pragmatic combination of both approaches: updating the CCM to intelligently handle both forms (allowing either the ID or the direct IP) for maximum backward compatibility and flexibility, and simultaneously updating the documentation to clearly reflect the preferred or explicitly required input format. Such a thoughtful and comprehensive change would dramatically improve the overall *developer experience* and significantly streamline *Kubernetes deployments* on Outscale, making the critical process of assigning *fixed public IPs* to load balancers intuitive, predictable, and consistently error-free, precisely as it was always intended to be. This proactive and user-focused approach ensures that new users don't inadvertently fall into the same trap and that existing users have a clearer, more reliable, and less ambiguous path forward for their essential infrastructure provisioning needs. # Contributing to a Better Outscale Kubernetes Ecosystem This isn't just about pinpointing and fixing a single, isolated bug, *folks*; it's about making a much broader and more profound impact on the overall health, robustness, and usability of the *Outscale Kubernetes ecosystem* for everyone involved. Actively identifying, meticulously documenting, and promptly reporting issues like this `osc-load-balancer-ip-id` annotation inconsistency is, without exaggeration, an absolutely crucial and invaluable part of iteratively improving any open-source project or cloud-provider integration. When you, as a diligent user or developer, encounter a discrepancy, however small it may seem, between what the documentation explicitly states and what the actual system behavior demonstrates, your detailed bug reports become the essential lifeblood of the project. They provide the necessary, real-world feedback that allows maintainers and core developers to accurately pinpoint problems, meticulously clarify ambiguities, and ultimately enhance the overall stability, predictability, and user-friendliness of the entire platform. If you've personally run into this specific issue and found yourself grappling with `InvalidParameterValue` errors, consider yourself an invaluable contributor and think about actively participating in its resolution! This could take several beneficial forms: it might mean adding a detailed comment to an existing bug report (if one has already been opened on the relevant GitHub repository for the Outscale Cloud Controller Manager), submitting a brand-new bug report with comprehensive, step-by-step reproduction instructions (just like we've outlined in this article), or even, for the more technically adventurous and skilled *guys* among us, daring to propose a direct code change, perhaps in the form of a pull request, to the *Outscale Cloud Controller Manager* project itself to implement the ID-to-IP resolution logic. Beyond code, contributing to documentation is another incredibly powerful and often underestimated way to help the community. Even a seemingly simple pull request to update a README file, clarify a specific section of the official technical documentation, or add a prominent warning about this known behavior can prevent countless hours of frustration, debugging, and wasted effort for future users who might encounter the same pitfall. The overarching goal here is to actively foster a collaborative, supportive, and highly responsive environment where critical issues are not merely identified and discussed but are actively and collaboratively addressed, leading to a consistently more robust, predictable, and ultimately enjoyable experience for all *Outscale Kubernetes users*. Every single contribution, no matter how minor it might appear, plays a significant role in refining the tools and platforms we rely on daily. By actively working together as a community – reporting bugs, suggesting improvements, and even contributing code or documentation – we collectively ensure that the *Outscale cloud provider for Kubernetes* continues to evolve into an even more powerful, reliable, and genuinely easy-to-use platform for deploying, scaling, and expertly managing containerized applications. Your involvement truly makes a difference in shaping the future of this ecosystem. # Wrapping It Up: Key Takeaways for Outscale Load Balancer IPs Alright, *crew*, let's bring it all home and succinctly summarize the essential, actionable takeaways from our comprehensive deep dive into the `osc-load-balancer-ip-id` annotation saga. The very core of the problem, as we have meticulously observed and reproduced, lies in a fundamental and critical mismatch between expectation and reality: while the official documentation for the Outscale Cloud Provider for Kubernetes strongly suggests and leads users to believe that the annotation expects an *Elastic IP allocation ID* (such as the distinctive `eipalloc-xxxxxxxx` string), the underlying *Outscale Cloud Controller Manager* for Kubernetes, in its current implementation, actually demands the *direct public IP address itself* (formatted as `1.2.3.4`) when it's tasked with provisioning a `LoadBalancer` service. This glaring inconsistency, as we've demonstrated, inevitably leads to frustrating and deployment-blocking `InvalidParameterValue` errors, effectively preventing your crucial efforts to assign a *fixed public IP* to your critical services, which is often a non-negotiable requirement for production-grade applications. The *immediate and pragmatic workaround* for anyone facing this issue right now is straightforward: instead of providing the `eipalloc-xxxxxxxx` ID, you must explicitly use the actual numerical public IP address in your `service.beta.kubernetes.io/osc-load-balancer-ip-id` annotation. To successfully implement this, you'll need to retrieve this precise public IP address, either by looking it up directly in your Outscale console under the Elastic IPs section or by programmatically querying it via the `osc-cli` or Outscale APIs. This temporary but highly effective fix will swiftly get your Kubernetes deployments up and running without any further frustrating delays, allowing your applications to become externally accessible as intended. However, looking optimistically towards the future, the ideal and most sustainable solution will ultimately involve either the *Outscale CCM* being intelligently updated to seamlessly resolve allocation IDs to their corresponding public IPs internally, thereby aligning its behavior with the documentation and user expectations, or, at a very minimum, the *official documentation* being comprehensively and explicitly updated to unequivocally clarify that the public IP address itself, and *not* the allocation ID, is the strictly required input for this critical annotation. This entire issue serves as a powerful reminder of the paramount importance of clear, unambiguous documentation and consistently predictable behavior in all cloud provider integrations, especially within complex ecosystems like Kubernetes. It also significantly highlights how absolutely vital it is for the user community to actively identify, report, and contribute to resolving such discrepancies. By deeply understanding this specific nuance and implementing the provided workaround, you can effectively avoid common pitfalls, significantly streamline your *Kubernetes deployments on Outscale*, and confidently ensure that your services get the stable, *fixed public IPs* they desperately need to operate reliably and without interruption. We strongly encourage you to keep a vigilant eye on the official Outscale CCM project repositories for any forthcoming updates or fixes, and please, *guys*, do not hesitate to contribute your valuable findings, insights, or even suggest improvements. Your active participation is what makes the ecosystem stronger for everyone. Happy deploying, and may your *Outscale Load Balancers* always get the right IP, every single time!