Skip to content

Add remote cluster ports to AWS and GCP private connectivity pages - #8211

Open
shainaraskas wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
private-link-remote-cluster-ports
Open

Add remote cluster ports to AWS and GCP private connectivity pages#8211
shainaraskas wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
private-link-remote-cluster-ports

Conversation

@shainaraskas

@shainaraskas shainaraskas commented Sep 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Summary

  • Extracts the port information from the shared private-url-struct.md snippet so each private connectivity page can specify its own supported ports.
  • Adds remote cluster ports (9400 for TLS certificate model, 9443 for API key model) to the AWS and GCP pages.
  • Adds a sentence to the AWS security group guidance so readers don't build rules that silently drop remote cluster traffic.
  • Restores the original port text (443 and 9243) on the Azure page. Azure remote cluster port coverage is pending confirmation

Serverless notes unchanged.

Partial fix for #8185

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Elastic Docs AI PR menu

Check the box to run an AI review for this pull request.

  • Review docs changes (docs-review). Status: not started.

Powered by GitHub Agentic Workflows and docs-actions. For more information, reach out to the docs team.

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

✅ Elastic Docs Style Checker (Vale)

No issues found on modified lines!


The Vale linter checks documentation changes against the Elastic Docs style guide. To use Vale locally or report issues, refer to Elastic style guide for Vale.

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
@shainaraskas
shainaraskas force-pushed the private-link-remote-cluster-ports branch from 208a847 to b5ce411 Compare September 4, 2026 21:08
@shainaraskas
shainaraskas marked this pull request as ready for review September 4, 2026 21:13
@shainaraskas
shainaraskas requested a review from a team as a code owner September 4, 2026 21:13

@wajihaparvez wajihaparvez left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM! Optional alias suggestion

:::{include} _snippets/private-url-struct.md
:::

{{ech}} supports ports `443` and `9243` for Elasticsearch and Kibana traffic. Remote cluster traffic for cross-cluster search and cross-cluster replication uses port `9400` with the TLS certificate based security model, or `9443` with the API key based model. Refer to [Connection paths and private connectivity](/deploy-manage/remote-clusters.md#remote-clusters-connection-paths) for the supported combinations.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
{{ech}} supports ports `443` and `9243` for Elasticsearch and Kibana traffic. Remote cluster traffic for cross-cluster search and cross-cluster replication uses port `9400` with the TLS certificate based security model, or `9443` with the API key based model. Refer to [Connection paths and private connectivity](/deploy-manage/remote-clusters.md#remote-clusters-connection-paths) for the supported combinations.
{{ech}} supports ports `443` and `9243` for {{es}} and {{kib}} traffic. Remote cluster traffic for cross-cluster search and cross-cluster replication uses port `9400` with the TLS certificate based security model, or `9443` with the API key based model. Refer to [Connection paths and private connectivity](/deploy-manage/remote-clusters.md#remote-clusters-connection-paths) for the supported combinations.

Same comment for other places in this PR

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants