Upcloud: Add possibility to setup cluster using nodes with no public IPs

[Xartos]

…e IPs<!-- Thanks for sending a pull request! Here are some tips for you:

1. If this is your first time, please read our contributor guidelines: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/first-contribution.md and developer guide https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/development.md
2. Please label this pull request according to what type of issue you are addressing, especially if this is a release targeted pull request. For reference on required PR/issue labels, read here:
   https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-release/release.md#issuepr-kind-label
3. Ensure you have added or ran the appropriate tests for your PR: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-testing/testing.md
4. If you want faster PR reviews, read how: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md#best-practices-for-faster-reviews
5. Follow the instructions for writing a release note: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/release-notes.md
6. If the PR is unfinished, see how to mark it: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md#marking-unfinished-pull-requests
   -->

What type of PR is this?

Uncomment only one /kind <> line, hit enter to put that in a new line, and remove leading whitespaces from that line:

/kind api-change
/kind bug
/kind cleanup
/kind design
/kind documentation
/kind failing-test
/kind feature
/kind flake

What this PR does / why we need it:

To increase the attack surface of clusters in upcloud we want to reduce the publicly facing IPs. Therefore this PR adds support for setting up a cluster without public IPs on the nodes. This was impossible previously.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #N/A

Special notes for your reviewer:

This PR depends on this PR, so I'll wait with merging this one until that PR is merged.

This change will change the output variable names.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

terraform upcloud: Add possibility to setup cluster using nodes with no public IPs

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @Xartos. 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.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Xartos
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign liupeng0518 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

[yankay]

/ok-to-test

[VannTen]

Not much comment (not my area of expertise), but I suggest you split your two last commits into a separate PR, since they are just linting fixes, that will make it easier to review (unless they fixes previous commits, in which case you should squash them into the approriate commits).

(Probably apply for other stuff as well, for examples, the schema removal in docs, agree it's redundant but it's probaly simpler to pull that into a separate change)

[Xartos]

Not much comment (not my area of expertise), but I suggest you split your two last commits into a separate PR, since they are just linting fixes, that will make it easier to review (unless they fixes previous commits, in which case you should squash them into the approriate commits).

(Probably apply for other stuff as well, for examples, the schema removal in docs, agree it's redundant but it's probaly simpler to pull that into a separate change)

I guess I work a bit different with PRs. I typically like to keep the commits separate until it's time to merge to have the possibility of seeing what has changed during the review process. Since they are anyway merged in the "Files changed" view.
But I've squashed them now PTAL and see if you feel that's better 🙂