Skip to content

Bole/cherry pick 7086#7134

Open
Fred1155 wants to merge 2 commits into
masterfrom
bole/cherry_pick_7086
Open

Bole/cherry pick 7086#7134
Fred1155 wants to merge 2 commits into
masterfrom
bole/cherry_pick_7086

Conversation

@Fred1155

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Original PR: #7086

Motivation and Context

Modifications

Testing

Screenshots (if appropriate)

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

Checklist

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING document
  • Local run of mvn install succeeds
  • My code follows the code style of this project
  • My change requires a change to the Javadoc documentation
  • I have updated the Javadoc documentation accordingly
  • I have added tests to cover my changes
  • All new and existing tests passed
  • I have added a changelog entry. Adding a new entry must be accomplished by running the scripts/new-change script and following the instructions. Commit the new file created by the script in .changes/next-release with your changes.
  • My change is to implement 1.11 parity feature and I have updated LaunchChangelog

License

  • I confirm that this pull request can be released under the Apache 2 license

Fred1155 and others added 2 commits July 10, 2026 15:53
ContainerCredentialsProvider rejects the EKS Pod Identity IPv6 endpoint
(http://[fd00:ec2::23]/v1/credentials) unless AWS_EC2_METADATA_SERVICE_ENDPOINT_MODE
was explicitly set to IPV6. That variable configures the EC2 IMDS endpoint
(169.254.169.254 vs [fd00:ec2::254]) which is (I believe?) a separate subsystem from the container
credentials endpoint and EKS Pod Identity never sets it, so it defaults to the IPv4 allowlist. This behavior rejects valid IPv6 loopback hosts.

This change aligns the Java SDK with the C++, Python (botocore), Go v2, and JS v3 SDKs,
all of which allow the EKS IPv6 host unconditionally.

Related issue: aws/containers-roadmap#2683.

(cherry picked from commit e22c1cd)
@Fred1155 Fred1155 requested a review from a team as a code owner July 10, 2026 22:57
@Fred1155 Fred1155 added the no-api-surface-area-change Indicate there is no API surface area change and thus API surface area review is not required label Jul 10, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

no-api-surface-area-change Indicate there is no API surface area change and thus API surface area review is not required

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants