Production Readiness Checklist for a Cloud-Provider Agnostic Web Platform

Capítulo 20

Estimated reading time: 13 minutes

+ Exercise

What “Production Readiness” Means for a Cloud-Provider Agnostic Web Platform

Production readiness is the discipline of proving that your platform can be operated safely and predictably under real-world conditions: variable traffic, partial failures, routine upgrades, security incidents, and human mistakes. For a cloud-provider agnostic web platform, the bar is higher because you must avoid hidden dependencies on a single vendor’s load balancers, identity systems, managed certificates, DNS features, or proprietary observability agents. A production readiness checklist turns that goal into verifiable items that can be tested, reviewed, and continuously enforced through automation.

In this chapter, “cloud-provider agnostic” means you can run the same Kubernetes-based web platform on multiple environments (public clouds, private cloud, on-prem) with minimal changes. You may still use provider integrations, but they must be optional, replaceable, and documented. The checklist below is organized by operational outcomes: repeatable deployments, secure defaults, predictable networking, observability, incident response, and governance.

Checklist Structure: From Principles to Verifiable Controls

A useful checklist is not a list of aspirations; it is a set of controls that can be verified by code, tests, or audits. Each section below includes: what to verify, why it matters, and practical steps to implement it in a provider-neutral way. Treat each item as a gate in your release process: if it cannot be verified, it is not complete.

Platform Baseline and Cluster Standards

Define a “Supported Cluster Profile”

Verify: You have a documented Kubernetes version range, container runtime expectations, CNI requirements, and minimum node resources. Why: Multi-environment support fails when clusters drift in versions, CNI behavior, or feature gates. Steps:

  • Publish a support matrix: Kubernetes versions (for example, N-2), required APIs (Ingress v1), and disallowed deprecated APIs.
  • Standardize on a CNI behavior set (NetworkPolicy semantics, eBPF vs iptables expectations) and test it in CI using ephemeral clusters.
  • Define baseline node sizing for ingress/data plane components and enforce via cluster provisioning templates (Terraform/Cluster API).

Namespace and Resource Segmentation

Verify: Clear separation between platform components, shared services, and application namespaces, with quotas and limits. Why: Noisy neighbors and accidental cross-team changes are common production failure modes. Steps:

Continue in our app.
  • Listen to the audio with the screen off.
  • Earn a certificate upon completion.
  • Over 5000 courses for you to explore!
Or continue reading below...
Download App

Download the app

  • Create namespaces for: ingress/edge, platform controllers, observability, and each application domain.
  • Apply ResourceQuota and LimitRange per namespace to prevent runaway pods from exhausting cluster capacity.
  • Use PodDisruptionBudgets for critical components (ingress controllers, gateways, DNS, cert managers) to keep availability during maintenance.

Configuration and Deployment Repeatability

GitOps or Equivalent “Single Source of Truth”

Verify: All Kubernetes manifests and platform configuration are versioned, reviewed, and applied automatically; manual kubectl changes are detected and reverted. Why: Provider-agnostic operations require reproducibility across clusters. Steps:

  • Store manifests/Helm/Kustomize in Git with environment overlays (dev/stage/prod) and cluster overlays (cloudA/cloudB/onprem) only where unavoidable.
  • Enforce pull-request reviews and policy checks (OPA Gatekeeper/Kyverno) before merge.
  • Implement drift detection and reconciliation (GitOps controller) so clusters converge to the declared state.

Release Strategy and Rollback Plan

Verify: Every deployment has a defined rollout method and a tested rollback procedure that does not rely on provider-specific features. Why: Rollbacks are part of normal operations; if they are not rehearsed, they will fail during incidents. Steps:

  • Choose a rollout approach per workload: rolling update, blue/green, or canary (implemented at the Kubernetes layer or via ingress routing rules).
  • Keep immutable container images and tag by digest; avoid “latest”.
  • Document rollback steps: revert Git commit, redeploy previous chart version, or switch traffic back to the stable service.

Environment Parity Without Vendor Lock-In

Verify: Differences between environments are intentional and minimal (for example, replica counts), not accidental (different ingress classes, different DNS behavior). Why: Provider-specific defaults often create “it works in staging” traps. Steps:

  • Use the same ingress controller and configuration across environments; if you must vary, do so via explicit values files.
  • Standardize on the same certificate management approach (for example, cert-manager) rather than cloud-managed certs that differ per provider.
  • Run conformance tests after each environment change: ingress routing, TLS termination, health checks, and basic authz policies.

Ingress and Edge Readiness (Provider-Agnostic)

Ingress Controller Installation and Hardening

Verify: Ingress controller is installed with least privilege, pinned versions, and predictable behavior across clusters. Why: The ingress layer is a high-risk boundary: misconfigurations can expose services or break routing. Steps:

  • Pin ingress controller version and chart version; upgrade via controlled change windows.
  • Run ingress controller with a dedicated ServiceAccount and minimal RBAC permissions.
  • Set resource requests/limits and horizontal scaling rules for the controller deployment.
  • Disable insecure defaults (for example, avoid wildcard host routing unless required).

Standardize IngressClass and Routing Conventions

Verify: Each Ingress resource targets an explicit IngressClass and follows consistent host/path conventions. Why: Multi-controller clusters and migrations are common; ambiguity causes traffic to land in the wrong place. Steps:

  • Define a standard IngressClass name (for example, edge) and require it via policy.
  • Adopt a host naming convention that works across DNS providers (no provider-only features).
  • Use explicit path types and avoid controller-specific annotations unless they are documented and tested.

External Exposure Model: LoadBalancer, NodePort, or Gateway

Verify: You can expose the platform in at least two environments (cloud and on-prem) using a documented pattern. Why: Cloud LoadBalancer services may not exist on-prem; on-prem may require MetalLB, BGP, or an external reverse proxy. Steps:

  • Document supported exposure patterns: Service type LoadBalancer (cloud), MetalLB (on-prem), or external L4 load balancer to NodePort.
  • Keep the ingress controller service definition abstracted via Helm values so the same chart can switch service type per environment.
  • Validate source IP preservation requirements and configure proxy protocol or X-Forwarded-For handling consistently.

Health Probes and Edge Monitoring Endpoints

Verify: Liveness/readiness probes exist for ingress components and every web workload; edge health endpoints are reachable from monitoring systems. Why: Without probes, Kubernetes cannot self-heal; without edge checks, you miss routing/TLS failures. Steps:

  • Ensure ingress controller has readiness gates that reflect config reload success.
  • For each web service, define readiness that checks dependencies minimally (for example, local process + critical downstream connectivity if required).
  • Expose a synthetic check endpoint (for example, /healthz) and monitor it externally from multiple regions/providers if possible.

DNS, Certificates, and Domain Management

DNS Portability and Record Strategy

Verify: DNS records can be moved between providers without changing application routing logic. Why: DNS is a frequent lock-in point (alias records, proprietary health checks). Steps:

  • Prefer standard A/AAAA/CNAME records; avoid provider-only alias features unless you have a fallback.
  • Use ExternalDNS with multiple provider backends if you need automation; keep provider credentials scoped to specific zones.
  • Set TTLs intentionally: lower TTL for cutovers, higher TTL for stable records to reduce query load.

Certificate Lifecycle Automation

Verify: TLS certificates are issued, renewed, and rotated automatically in every environment with the same toolchain. Why: Manual certificate operations cause outages and security gaps. Steps:

  • Use cert-manager with ACME (public) or internal CA (private) and store Issuer/ClusterIssuer definitions in Git.
  • Define a standard secret naming convention and reference it consistently in Ingress resources.
  • Test renewal in staging by shortening durations (where safe) and verifying ingress reload behavior.

Security Readiness Beyond Service-to-Service Controls

Pod Security and Workload Hardening

Verify: Workloads run with non-root users, read-only filesystems where possible, and restricted capabilities. Why: Web platforms are common targets; container escape and privilege misuse are mitigated by strong defaults. Steps:

  • Adopt Kubernetes Pod Security Standards (restricted) via namespace labels and policy enforcement.
  • Set securityContext: runAsNonRoot, drop Linux capabilities, and set seccompProfile to RuntimeDefault.
  • Use separate service accounts per workload; avoid default service account token mounting if not needed.

Secrets Management and Rotation

Verify: Secrets are not stored in plaintext in Git; rotation is supported without downtime. Why: Multi-cloud increases the chance of inconsistent secret handling. Steps:

  • Use a provider-neutral secret manager pattern: External Secrets Operator with backends (Vault, cloud secret managers) or sealed secrets for Git storage.
  • Design applications to reload secrets (SIGHUP, periodic refresh, or restart) and test rotation in staging.
  • Restrict secret access via RBAC and namespace boundaries; audit secret reads where possible.

Supply Chain Security for Images and Manifests

Verify: Images are scanned, signed, and pulled from controlled registries; manifests are policy-checked. Why: Production incidents often start with compromised dependencies. Steps:

  • Use an image registry strategy that works across environments (self-hosted or replicated registries).
  • Scan images in CI and block critical vulnerabilities by policy; store SBOMs alongside artifacts.
  • Adopt signature verification (for example, Sigstore/cosign) and enforce admission policies that require signed images.

Observability and Operational Telemetry

Golden Signals and SLO-Driven Monitoring

Verify: You can observe latency, traffic, errors, and saturation for edge and application layers, and tie them to SLOs. Why: Provider-agnostic operations require consistent signals regardless of where the cluster runs. Steps:

  • Define SLOs per user-facing route (for example, 99.9% availability, p95 latency) and implement alerting based on error budgets.
  • Instrument ingress metrics (requests, response codes, upstream latency) and application metrics (request duration, queue depth).
  • Ensure dashboards are templated by cluster/environment so you can compare behavior across providers.

Centralized Logging with Correlation

Verify: Logs from ingress, platform components, and apps are centralized, searchable, and correlated by request ID/trace ID. Why: When incidents span multiple clusters/providers, you need consistent log structure. Steps:

  • Adopt structured logging (JSON) and standard fields: timestamp, service, namespace, pod, request_id, user_agent.
  • Deploy a portable log pipeline (Fluent Bit/Vector) to a backend you can run anywhere (OpenSearch, Loki, or a managed equivalent with export).
  • Standardize retention and access controls; separate security/audit logs from application logs.

Tracing and Dependency Visibility

Verify: You can trace user requests through ingress to backend services and identify slow hops. Why: Multi-environment debugging needs consistent context propagation. Steps:

  • Use OpenTelemetry SDKs/collectors and export to a backend that is not tied to one cloud.
  • Ensure ingress adds or forwards trace headers; validate sampling policies do not drop critical incident data.
  • Create runbooks that start from a user-facing symptom and walk through traces, logs, and metrics in a repeatable order.

Resilience of Platform Components (Operational, Not Pattern-Level)

Control Plane Add-ons and Upgrade Discipline

Verify: Critical add-ons (DNS, ingress controller, cert-manager, autoscalers, storage drivers) have version pinning, upgrade notes, and rollback paths. Why: Many outages are caused by add-on upgrades rather than application code. Steps:

  • Maintain an “add-on bill of materials” with versions and compatibility notes per Kubernetes version.
  • Upgrade in a staging cluster that matches production topology; run smoke tests for ingress routing and certificate issuance.
  • Keep previous Helm releases and container images available for rollback; document the rollback trigger criteria.

Capacity Planning for Shared Components

Verify: Shared components have capacity targets and alerts (CPU, memory, connection counts, queue sizes). Why: Even if applications scale, shared layers can become bottlenecks. Steps:

  • Set resource requests/limits for ingress and observability agents; avoid “best effort” for critical pods.
  • Alert on saturation indicators: node pressure, pod evictions, DNS latency, certificate issuance queue delays.
  • Run periodic load tests that include the edge layer and validate that autoscaling triggers as expected.

Data, State, and Storage Portability

StorageClass Strategy and Stateful Workloads

Verify: Stateful components can run on multiple storage backends with minimal changes, and you understand the portability limits. Why: Storage is a major source of cloud lock-in. Steps:

  • Define a small set of StorageClasses with consistent names across clusters (for example, fast, standard), mapped to provider-specific implementations.
  • Document which workloads require ReadWriteMany vs ReadWriteOnce and validate that the target environments support them.
  • Test backup/restore procedures in each environment and verify recovery time objectives (RTO) and recovery point objectives (RPO).

Backup, Restore, and Disaster Recovery Drills

Verify: You can restore critical data and platform configuration into a new cluster in a different environment. Why: Provider-agnostic claims are unproven without cross-environment recovery. Steps:

  • Back up Kubernetes objects (namespaces, CRDs where appropriate) and persistent volumes using portable tools (Velero or storage-native snapshots with documented alternatives).
  • Run quarterly restore drills into an isolated cluster; measure time to restore and validate application correctness.
  • Store backups in a location accessible across providers (object storage with replication or a neutral storage endpoint).

Identity, Access, and Governance for Humans and Automation

RBAC Model and Least Privilege

Verify: Human and CI/CD access is scoped, audited, and consistent across clusters. Why: Multi-cluster operations amplify the blast radius of overly broad permissions. Steps:

  • Define roles by job function (viewer, operator, platform-admin) and bind them to groups from your identity provider.
  • Use short-lived credentials where possible; avoid long-lived kubeconfigs on laptops.
  • Enable audit logging and regularly review privileged actions (clusterrolebindings, secret reads, exec into pods).

Policy as Code for Guardrails

Verify: Policies prevent risky configurations before they reach production. Why: Provider-agnostic platforms need consistent guardrails across environments. Steps:

  • Enforce required labels/annotations, IngressClass usage, and resource requests/limits via Gatekeeper/Kyverno.
  • Block privileged pods, hostPath mounts, and hostNetwork unless explicitly approved.
  • Require approved container registries and disallow mutable tags.

Operational Runbooks and Incident Readiness

Runbooks for Common Web Platform Incidents

Verify: On-call engineers have step-by-step runbooks that map symptoms to checks and mitigations, independent of cloud provider consoles. Why: In a provider-agnostic posture, you must be able to operate from Kubernetes and your observability stack. Steps:

  • Create runbooks for: ingress not receiving traffic, DNS misrouting, certificate renewal failures, sudden 4xx spikes, and latency regressions.
  • Include exact commands and queries (kubectl, log queries, metric panels) and expected outputs.
  • Maintain an “emergency access” procedure with approvals and time-bounded elevated permissions.

Change Management and Maintenance Windows

Verify: Platform changes are tracked, reviewed, and scheduled; emergency changes are documented after the fact. Why: Most production instability comes from uncontrolled change. Steps:

  • Use a change template: what changes, risk, rollback, validation steps, and owner.
  • Automate pre-flight checks: policy compliance, manifest diff, and smoke tests.
  • After changes, require validation: synthetic checks, key dashboards, and error budget impact review.

Practical Step-by-Step: Turning the Checklist into a Release Gate

Step 1: Encode the Checklist as Tests

Convert checklist items into automated checks that run on every pull request and before production sync. Examples include: validating Ingress resources have an IngressClass, ensuring every Deployment has resource requests/limits, and confirming Pod Security settings meet your baseline.

# Example: policy check in CI (conceptual) 1) Render manifests (Helm/Kustomize) 2) Run kubeconform for schema validation 3) Run policy engine tests (Gatekeeper/Kyverno) 4) Fail build if violations exist

Step 2: Add a “Pre-Prod Verification” Job

Create a job that runs against the target cluster and verifies runtime conditions: ingress controller pods ready, cert-manager healthy, DNS records present, and synthetic HTTP checks passing. Keep it provider-neutral by using Kubernetes APIs and HTTP checks rather than cloud console calls.

# Example checks (conceptual) kubectl -n ingress get pods kubectl -n cert-manager get pods kubectl get ingress --all-namespaces curl -fsS https://your-domain.example/healthz

Step 3: Require Evidence in Pull Requests

For changes that affect production readiness (ingress, certificates, DNS automation, policies), require PR evidence: links to CI results, rendered manifest diffs, and updated runbooks. This creates an audit trail and prevents “tribal knowledge” operations.

Step 4: Schedule Regular Readiness Reviews

Production readiness is not a one-time milestone. Schedule periodic reviews where you re-run disaster recovery drills, validate backup restores, rotate secrets, and test cluster upgrades in staging. Track checklist compliance as a living scorecard per cluster and per environment.

Now answer the exercise about the content:

Which approach best turns a production readiness checklist into an enforceable release gate for a cloud-provider agnostic Kubernetes web platform?

You are right! Congratulations, now go to the next page

You missed! Try again.

A useful checklist is a set of verifiable controls. Converting items into automated policy and conformance checks, plus pre-production runtime verification, makes the checklist enforceable and provider-neutral.

Free Ebook cover Cloud-Native Web Serving with Kubernetes Ingress and Service Mesh
100%

Cloud-Native Web Serving with Kubernetes Ingress and Service Mesh

New course

20 pages

Download the app to earn free Certification and listen to the courses in the background, even with the screen off.