feat: add support for aws dualstack nlbs

[nakamume]

Description

The controller creates AAAA recs for AWS dualstack ALBs correctly but doesn't support dualstack NLBs. This PR adds support for AAAA recs for dualstack NLBs.

Fixes #4509

Checklist

• Unit tests updated
• End user documentation updated

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign mloiseleur for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @nakamume. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[mloiseleur]

/ok-to-test

Thanks for this PR.
Would you please update the tutorial on aws LB controller about this support ?

[nakamume]

/ok-to-test

Thanks for this PR. Would you please update the tutorial on aws LB controller about this support ?

Updated here: 74ab55b

[mloiseleur]

/lgtm

[nakamume]

/lgtm

@mloiseleur Hi! What's the procedure to get it merged? How long does it normally takes?

[mloiseleur]

There is an other review required by an other maintainer before merge.
It will be done by @Raffo or @szuecs when they have time.

[Raffo]

I know this has been a long time missing, but I am not in favor of getting this merged as it is. There are two main concerns:

1. I don't want that we couple service.go with the AWS implementation. Having a label there that is provider specific sounds very wrong.
2. There was a previous discussion with comments here which then resulted in WIP Always create AAAA alias records in route53 #3605 which became stale. I think a better path forward would be to resume the work in WIP Always create AAAA alias records in route53 #3605 .

Note that this PR is exactly the same as #2050 (comment) which wasn't merged for a reason, which is the open points that other contributors and @szuecs have mentioned.

[mloiseleur]

/lgtm cancel
\o Sorry I think I agree with @Raffo
A provider code should not go into core components.

[nakamume]

Ah okay. I'll close this then.