In the vast and intricate landscape of modern cloud-native architectures, particularly within Kubernetes environments, the Ingress Controller stands as a pivotal component. It acts as the primary external gateway, the vigilant sentry directing incoming HTTP and HTTPS traffic to the appropriate services within the cluster. Without a well-configured Ingress Controller, external users and systems would be unable to access the applications and APIs that power today's digital experiences. However, the true efficacy and resilience of this critical infrastructure often hinge on subtle yet profoundly impactful configurations, one of the most significant being the management of upper limit request sizes.

The ability to process diverse requests is fundamental to any robust system, yet unbounded processing can quickly devolve into chaos. Every request consumes resources – CPU cycles, memory, and network bandwidth. If an Ingress Controller, which essentially functions as a sophisticated reverse proxy or gateway, is subjected to requests that are excessively large, it can lead to a cascade of performance issues, security vulnerabilities, and system instability. Imagine a colossal data transfer initiating unexpectedly, or a malicious actor attempting to flood your api gateway with oversized payloads designed to exhaust your infrastructure. These scenarios underscore the paramount importance of meticulously defining and enforcing request size limits.

This comprehensive guide delves deep into the nuances of Ingress Controller request size limits. We will explore why these limits are indispensable, examine how different Ingress Controllers implement and allow configuration of these boundaries, and lay out a robust set of best practices for their management. Furthermore, we will touch upon advanced considerations, including the interplay with specialized api gateway solutions, to ensure your Kubernetes deployments are not only performant and secure but also resilient against unforeseen challenges. Our objective is to equip you with the knowledge to optimize your api traffic flow, safeguard your services, and maintain the seamless operation of your applications, irrespective of their payload demands.

Understanding Ingress Controllers and the Imperative of Request Size Limits

Before we dive into the "how-to," it's crucial to solidify our understanding of what an Ingress Controller is and why limiting request sizes at this critical juncture is non-negotiable.

What is an Ingress Controller? A Kubernetes Gateway Explained

At its core, an Ingress Controller is a specialized reverse proxy that lives within your Kubernetes cluster. Its primary role is to provide HTTP and HTTPS routing for external traffic to services inside the cluster. While Kubernetes offers Services of type NodePort or LoadBalancer for exposing applications, these often come with limitations (e.g., exposing a port on every node for NodePort, or provisioning a new cloud load balancer for each service with LoadBalancer). Ingress, combined with an Ingress Controller, solves this by offering a single point of entry – a gateway – capable of routing traffic to multiple services based on hostnames or URL paths.

Think of it as the highly efficient receptionist for your entire Kubernetes office building. When a visitor (an external request) arrives, they don't directly know which department (service) or employee (pod) they need. The receptionist (Ingress Controller) takes their details (hostname, path, headers) and, based on pre-defined rules (Ingress resources), directs them to the correct internal destination. This allows for:

• Single IP Address/Load Balancer: One external IP can serve many services.
• Path-Based Routing: yourdomain.com/api/v1 goes to api-service, yourdomain.com/blog goes to blog-service.
• Host-Based Routing: app1.yourdomain.com goes to app1-service, app2.yourdomain.com goes to app2-service.
• SSL/TLS Termination: The Ingress Controller can handle encryption/decryption, offloading this burden from your backend services.
• Advanced Features: Depending on the controller, it might offer load balancing, traffic splitting, authentication, and even basic WAF capabilities.

Popular Ingress Controllers include Nginx Ingress Controller, Traefik, HAProxy Ingress, Contour (Envoy-based), and cloud provider-specific ones like AWS ALB Ingress Controller or GCE Ingress. Each of these implements the Ingress API specification but brings its own set of features, performance characteristics, and configuration paradigms, especially concerning how they function as an api gateway.

What are Request Size Limits and Why Do They Matter?

Request size limits define the maximum permissible size of an HTTP request body that the Ingress Controller – and by extension, the underlying web server or proxy it leverages – will accept. When an incoming request's body exceeds this configured threshold, the Ingress Controller typically rejects it, responding with an HTTP 413 Payload Too Large status code.

These limits are not arbitrary restrictions; they are fundamental safeguards designed to maintain the health and security of your infrastructure. Without them, your gateway and backend services become vulnerable to various forms of abuse and performance degradation:

• Preventing Resource Exhaustion: Processing large requests consumes significant resources:
  • Memory: The Ingress Controller and potentially the backend service need to buffer the entire request body in memory before processing. An unbounded influx of large requests can quickly exhaust available RAM, leading to Out-Of-Memory (OOM) errors, pod restarts, and service interruptions.
  • CPU: Parsing and processing vast amounts of data requires substantial CPU cycles. This can lead to CPU starvation for other legitimate requests or services.
  • Network I/O: Large payloads saturate network interfaces, increasing latency for all traffic and potentially causing network bottlenecks within the cluster.
• Mitigating Denial of Service (DoS) Attacks: Malicious actors can exploit systems without request size limits to launch DoS attacks. By sending a flood of extremely large requests, an attacker can intentionally overwhelm the Ingress Controller and its backend services, making them unresponsive to legitimate users. This is a classic form of api abuse that robust api gateway configurations aim to prevent.
• Protecting Backend Services: Even if the Ingress Controller itself can handle a large payload, your backend application might not be designed for it. A small, simple microservice might crash or behave unpredictably when faced with a multi-megabyte request body. Implementing limits at the Ingress Controller acts as the first line of defense, preventing such requests from even reaching your potentially fragile backend.
• Enforcing API Contracts: Many apis have implicit or explicit limits on the data they expect. Enforcing these limits at the gateway level ensures that clients adhere to the api contract, preventing unexpected behavior and promoting predictable system interactions. For instance, a file upload api might specify a maximum file size; the Ingress Controller's limit should align with this.

The HTTP 413 Payload Too Large error is the direct consequence of exceeding these limits. While it might seem like a harsh rejection, it's a clear signal that the system cannot or will not process the request due to its size. Understanding this error and its origins is the first step in diagnosing and resolving issues related to request size management.

Ultimately, proper configuration of request size limits is a balancing act. You need to allow for legitimate, necessary data transfers while simultaneously protecting your infrastructure from abuse and ensuring its stable, high-performance operation. This balance is critical for any gateway in a production environment.

The "Why": Ramifications of Improper Request Size Limits

Failing to adequately configure request size limits on your Ingress Controller can have far-reaching and detrimental consequences across various aspects of your system's operation. These impacts extend beyond simple error messages, potentially compromising performance, security, and the very stability of your applications. Understanding these ramifications is key to appreciating the importance of this configuration.

Performance Degradation: The Silent Killer of User Experience

When an Ingress Controller or a downstream service attempts to process requests that are larger than optimally handled, the immediate effect is often a noticeable degradation in performance. This isn't just about a single large request; it's about the cumulative impact on the system.

• Increased Latency and Response Times: Larger payloads inherently take longer to transmit across the network. More critically, they require more time for the gateway to buffer, parse, and forward. This translates directly into higher latency for the client, increasing the overall response time for the api call. For interactive applications or real-time apis, even minor increases in latency can severely degrade the user experience.
• Resource Contention: Processing substantial request bodies demands more CPU and memory resources from the Ingress Controller pods. If these pods are already under moderate load, the addition of a few large requests can push them past their capacity, leading to CPU throttling or memory pressure. This contention isn't isolated; it impacts all requests passing through that Ingress Controller instance, slowing down even smaller, legitimate api calls.
• Network Saturation: While less common in well-provisioned clusters, consistently processing very large requests can saturate the network interfaces of the Ingress Controller pods and the underlying nodes. This reduces available bandwidth for other cluster traffic, leading to packet drops, retransmissions, and further increases in latency across the entire network fabric.
• Cascading Slowdowns: If the Ingress Controller is struggling, it can create a backlog of requests. This backlog then puts pressure on the connection pool management, potentially leading to connection timeouts and an increasing number of failed requests, even for unrelated services. The entire api gateway layer can become a bottleneck, irrespective of the backend service's health.

Security Vulnerabilities: A Wide-Open Door

Improperly set (or non-existent) request size limits create significant security blind spots, making your applications susceptible to various attack vectors, particularly those targeting resource exhaustion.

• Denial of Service (DoS) and Distributed DoS (DDoS) Attacks: As previously mentioned, this is the most direct threat. An attacker can craft extremely large requests (e.g., hundreds of megabytes or even gigabytes) and flood the Ingress Controller. Because the controller attempts to buffer and process these requests, its resources (CPU, memory, network buffers) quickly become exhausted. This prevents legitimate users from accessing your apis and applications, effectively bringing your services down. Even if your backend application has its own limits, the Ingress Controller as the gateway is the first point of failure.
• Slowloris-like Attacks (Indirect): While not a direct Slowloris, very large requests can be sent slowly, tying up connections for extended periods. If the Ingress Controller has high timeouts and no size limits, an attacker could send a large body byte-by-byte, keeping a connection open and consuming resources without sending a complete, valid request quickly.
• Application-Level Attacks (Proxied): Even if the Ingress Controller successfully forwards an oversized request, it might destabilize the backend application. Some applications, especially those written in languages with less robust memory management or without explicit input validation, could be vulnerable to crashes or memory leaks when processing unexpected volumes of data. This could lead to further DoS, or even potentially, albeit rarely, buffer overflows if the application's parsing logic is flawed. The Ingress Controller should ideally prevent these requests from ever reaching the application layer.
• API Abuse and Data Exfiltration: While not directly related to incoming request size, understanding the data flow through your api gateway is crucial. Unrestricted request sizes can sometimes mask attempts to upload illicit data or, in reverse, allow an attacker to request extremely large datasets, potentially for exfiltration, if the backend api is also misconfigured. The principle of limiting all aspects of an api interaction is paramount.

Reliability and Stability Issues: The Unpredictable Breakdowns

Beyond performance and security, misconfigured request size limits introduce an element of unpredictability and fragility into your system, leading to intermittent and hard-to-diagnose stability problems.

• Intermittent 413 Errors: Legitimate users attempting to upload slightly larger files or submit complex forms might suddenly encounter 413 Payload Too Large errors. These errors are often confusing to end-users and indicate a poor user experience. More importantly, they represent a failure in the system to accommodate expected user behavior.
• Application Crashes and Undefined Behavior: If an oversized request somehow bypasses Ingress Controller limits (perhaps due to misconfiguration or an advanced attack) and hits a backend service unprepared for it, the service might crash, enter an unstable state, or exhibit undefined behavior. This can lead to data corruption, incorrect processing, or complete service outages for all users, not just the one who sent the large request.
• Difficult Troubleshooting: When limits are mismatched across different layers (Ingress Controller, service mesh, application, database), diagnosing the root cause of a 413 error or an application crash becomes a nightmare. Is it the gateway? Is it the application? Is it a database constraint? A consistent and well-documented approach to request size limits across the entire request path simplifies troubleshooting immensely.
• Resource Contention Leading to Broader Instability: As discussed under performance, resource exhaustion at the Ingress Controller level can lead to its pods restarting or becoming unresponsive. This impacts all services behind that Ingress, regardless of their individual health, introducing instability across multiple applications. Such failures often manifest as cascading timeouts or connection errors that appear unrelated to any single service.

In essence, ignoring request size limits is akin to building a house without a strong foundation. While it might stand for a while, any significant stressor will expose its fundamental weaknesses, leading to costly and disruptive failures. A well-considered gateway configuration is therefore an investment in the long-term health and reliability of your entire Kubernetes ecosystem.

Common Ingress Controllers and Their Request Size Configuration

Different Ingress Controllers, while serving the same fundamental purpose, employ distinct methods for configuring parameters like request size limits. Understanding these variations is crucial for correctly implementing best practices across your diverse Kubernetes deployments. We'll explore some of the most widely used Ingress Controllers and detail their specific configuration mechanisms.

Nginx Ingress Controller: The Ubiquitous Choice

The Nginx Ingress Controller is arguably the most popular choice in the Kubernetes ecosystem, largely due to Nginx's proven reliability, performance, and extensive feature set as a reverse proxy. Its configuration leverages Nginx's powerful directive system, exposed through Kubernetes annotations or ConfigMaps.

The primary directive for controlling request body size in Nginx is client_max_body_size. This setting determines the maximum size of the client request body allowed by the Nginx gateway. When using the Nginx Ingress Controller, you can configure this in several ways:

1. Per-Ingress Resource Annotation: This is the most common and recommended approach for granular control. You can add an annotation directly to your Ingress resource: ```yaml apiVersion: networking.k8s.io/v1 kind: Ingress metadata: name: my-app-ingress annotations: nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/proxy-body-size: "10m" # Sets max body size to 10 megabytes # Other Nginx-specific annotations... spec: rules:
   • host: myapp.example.com http: paths:
     • path: /upload pathType: Prefix backend: service: name: upload-service port: number: 80
     • path: /api pathType: Prefix backend: service: name: api-service port: number: 80 `` In this example,nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/proxy-body-size: "10m"configures Nginx to reject any request body larger than 10MB for all paths undermyapp.example.com. The value can be specified in bytes (10000000), kilobytes (10k), or megabytes (10m). Setting it to0` effectively disables the limit, which is generally not recommended for security reasons.
2. Global Configuration via ConfigMap: For a cluster-wide default or for settings that aren't exposed via simple annotations, you can modify the Nginx Ingress Controller's ConfigMap. This ConfigMap often named nginx-configuration in the ingress-nginx namespace, allows you to inject raw Nginx directives. yaml apiVersion: v1 kind: ConfigMap metadata: name: nginx-configuration namespace: ingress-nginx data: client-max-body-size: "5m" # Default global limit of 5MB # You can also add other global Nginx directives here # For example, to handle very large headers: # large-client-header-buffers: "4 16k" Any Ingress resource that doesn't specify nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/proxy-body-size will inherit the global client-max-body-size from this ConfigMap. Per-Ingress annotations always override global settings.
3. Per-Location Configuration (Advanced): While not directly an Ingress annotation, you can use nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/configuration-snippet or nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/server-snippet to inject arbitrary Nginx configuration into the location or server blocks generated by the controller. This offers maximum flexibility but should be used with caution, as it bypasses the controller's safety mechanisms. ```yaml apiVersion: networking.k8s.io/v1 kind: Ingress metadata: name: my-advanced-ingress annotations: nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/configuration-snippet: | if ($request_uri ~* "/upload_large") { client_max_body_size 100m; } # This snippet is inserted into the server block. # More complex logic might be needed for different paths. spec: rules:
   • host: advancedapp.example.com http: paths:
     • path: / pathType: Prefix backend: service: name: default-service port: number: 80 ``` This approach is powerful but requires a deep understanding of Nginx configuration and can be harder to manage and debug.

Key considerations for Nginx Ingress: * proxy-body-size vs. client-max-body-size: The annotation nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/proxy-body-size directly maps to Nginx's client_max_body_size directive for proxy contexts. * Header Size: Don't confuse body size with header size. Very large headers (e.g., due to many cookies or large authentication tokens) are controlled by large_client_header_buffers, which is typically set in the ConfigMap globally. * Buffering: Other related Nginx directives like proxy_buffering and proxy_request_buffering also play a role in how Nginx handles request bodies, especially for large uploads. proxy-request-buffering set to "off" can be useful for streaming large files directly to the upstream service without buffering the entire request body on the Nginx gateway first.

HAProxy Ingress Controller: Performance and Robustness

The HAProxy Ingress Controller leverages HAProxy's renowned capabilities for high performance and sophisticated load balancing. Similar to Nginx, it offers ways to configure request size limits via annotations or its ConfigMap.

HAProxy uses the http-request deny rule with conditions based on the content length. The Ingress Controller translates Kubernetes annotations or ConfigMap settings into appropriate HAProxy configuration directives.

1. Per-Ingress Annotation: ```yaml apiVersion: networking.k8s.io/v1 kind: Ingress metadata: name: my-haproxy-app annotations: haproxy.org/client-max-body-size: "15m" # Sets max body size to 15 megabytes spec: rules:
   • host: haproxyapp.example.com http: paths:
     • path: / pathType: Prefix backend: service: name: my-service port: number: 80 `` The annotationhaproxy.org/client-max-body-sizeis the equivalent for HAProxy. If a request body exceeds15m` (15 megabytes), HAProxy will reject it.
2. Global Configuration via ConfigMap: The HAProxy Ingress Controller typically looks for a ConfigMap named haproxy-config (or similar) in its namespace. yaml apiVersion: v1 kind: ConfigMap metadata: name: haproxy-config namespace: haproxy-ingress data: client-max-body-size: "8m" # Global default of 8MB # Other global HAProxy parameters This client-max-body-size entry in the ConfigMap sets the default for all ingresses that don't override it with a specific annotation.

Key considerations for HAProxy Ingress: * Granularity: HAProxy is highly configurable, and while annotations provide a good balance of simplicity and control, for extremely complex scenarios, direct HAProxy configuration via a ConfigMap might be necessary, though it adds to the operational overhead. * Performance: HAProxy is known for its lightweight footprint and high performance, making it an excellent api gateway for high-throughput scenarios. Ensuring proper size limits contributes to maintaining this performance under load.

Envoy-based Ingress Controllers (e.g., Contour, Ambassador/Emissary-API Gateway)

Envoy Proxy is a high-performance edge and service proxy. Controllers like Contour (which implements the Kubernetes Gateway API and Ingress API via its HTTPProxy CRD) or Ambassador/Emissary-API Gateway (which uses its own Mapping CRD) leverage Envoy. Envoy's configuration is often more declarative and structured through Custom Resource Definitions (CRDs) rather than annotations.

Envoy has a max_request_bytes setting for its HTTP connection manager, which controls the maximum size of a request.

1. Contour (with HTTPProxy CRD): Contour typically uses HTTPProxy custom resources. You can specify maximum request body size at various levels. ```yaml apiVersion: projectcontour.io/v1 kind: HTTPProxy metadata: name: my-contour-proxy namespace: default spec: virtualhost: fqdn: contour.example.com routes:
   • prefix: /upload services:
   • name: upload-service port: 80
2. Ambassador/Emissary-API Gateway (with Mapping CRD): Ambassador (now Emissary-API Gateway) is another powerful Envoy-based api gateway. It uses Mapping resources to define routes. yaml apiVersion: getambassador.io/v2 kind: Mapping metadata: name: my-ambassador-mapping spec: prefix: /api/v1/large-upload service: my-upload-service:80 # Envoy's max_request_bytes can be set here: max_request_bytes: 104857600 # 100 MB in bytes Ambassador directly exposes max_request_bytes in its Mapping resource, allowing you to set a specific limit for individual routes or groups of routes, demonstrating its capability as a robust api gateway.

conditions:

Envoy-specific configuration through extensions or direct fields

requestHeadersPolicy: maxRequestBytes: 50M # This is an illustrative example; exact field might vary based on Contour version and extensibility. # Contour's HTTPProxy provides ways to specify requestBodySize or similar limits. `` In newer versions of Contour,HTTPProxyresources might offer fields likeresponseTimeout,perConnectionBufferLimitBytes, or other settings that indirectly influence how large requests are handled. The exact field formax_request_bytesmight be part of an Envoy extension or a dedicatedHTTPProxyfield forrequestBodySizeLimit` (check Contour's official documentation for the precise field, as CRDs evolve).

Key considerations for Envoy-based Ingress/API Gateways: * CRD-centric: Configuration is primarily done through custom resources, which are powerful but require understanding the specific CRD schema. * Envoy Filters: Envoy is highly extensible through filters. For very advanced scenarios, you might define custom Envoy filters to inspect and reject requests based on size or other criteria. This would typically be managed via the EnvoyFilter CRD in an Istio context, or through similar extension mechanisms provided by controllers like Contour or Emissary. * API Gateway Capabilities: Controllers like Emissary-API Gateway blur the line between Ingress Controller and full-fledged api gateway, offering rich api management features alongside basic routing.

Traefik Ingress Controller: The Cloud-Native Edge Router

Traefik is a modern HTTP reverse proxy and load balancer designed for microservices. It automatically discovers services and dynamically updates its configuration. Traefik, like Nginx, offers annotations for setting request size limits.

Traefik's clientMaxBodySize option (or maxRequestBodyBytes in newer versions/middlewares) controls the maximum request body size.

1. Per-Ingress Annotation: ```yaml apiVersion: networking.k8s.io/v1 kind: Ingress metadata: name: my-traefik-app annotations: traefik.ingress.kubernetes.io/max-request-body-size: "20m" # Sets max body size to 20 megabytes spec: rules:
   • host: traefikapp.example.com http: paths:
     • path: / pathType: Prefix backend: service: name: my-service port: number: 80 `` Thetraefik.ingress.kubernetes.io/max-request-body-size` annotation is the most direct way to configure this per Ingress.
2. Middleware (Recommended for Modern Traefik): In newer Traefik versions (v2.x and above), using a Middleware custom resource is the preferred way to apply transformations and restrictions, including body size limits. This allows for more reusable and composable configurations. yaml apiVersion: traefik.io/v1alpha1 kind: Middleware metadata: name: body-size-limit namespace: default spec: buffering: maxRequestBodyBytes: 25000000 # 25 MB in bytes --- apiVersion: traefik.io/v1alpha1 kind: IngressRoute # Traefik's custom Ingress definition metadata: name: my-traefik-route namespace: default spec: entryPoints: - websecure routes: - match: Host(`traefikapp.example.com`) && PathPrefix(`/upload`) kind: Rule services: - name: my-upload-service port: 80 middlewares: - name: body-size-limit@kubernetescrd # Reference the middleware Using a Middleware provides more flexibility, as the same middleware can be applied to multiple IngressRoutes or Ingress resources, allowing for centralized management of policies like request size limits.

Key considerations for Traefik Ingress: * Dynamic Configuration: Traefik excels at dynamic configuration discovery, making it ideal for highly dynamic microservice environments. * Middleware Power: For anything beyond basic routing, Traefik's Middleware concept offers immense power, allowing you to chain various functionalities, including authentication, rate limiting, and request/response body manipulation, effectively making it a lightweight api gateway for many use cases.

Other Ingress Controllers (Briefly)

• Cloud Provider Ingresses (AWS ALB, GCE L7 Load Balancer): These Ingress Controllers provision cloud-managed load balancers. The request size limits are often configured directly on the cloud load balancer itself (e.g., AWS ALB has a 1MB default body size limit, configurable up to 64KB for headers and 10MB for body) or through specific annotations that translate to cloud provider settings. They act as cloud-managed api gateway solutions.
• Istio Gateway: While Istio uses an Envoy proxy under the hood, its Gateway and VirtualService CRDs are distinct from a pure Ingress Controller. Request size limits are typically configured within the EnvoyFilter or potentially specific fields in the VirtualService or Gateway resources, offering very fine-grained control for service mesh environments acting as an api gateway.

In summary, while the goal of setting request size limits remains constant, the methodology varies significantly between Ingress Controllers. It's imperative to consult the official documentation for your specific Ingress Controller and version to ensure correct and effective configuration. Consistent and deliberate configuration across all these potential gateway entry points is paramount for a secure and stable Kubernetes cluster.

APIPark is a high-performance AI gateway that allows you to securely access the most comprehensive LLM APIs globally on the APIPark platform, including OpenAI, Anthropic, Mistral, Llama2, Google Gemini, and more.Try APIPark now! 👇👇👇

Best Practices for Setting Request Size Limits

Configuring request size limits is not a set-it-and-forget-it task. It requires thoughtful planning, continuous monitoring, and adaptation. Adhering to a set of best practices ensures that these limits serve their intended purpose: protecting your infrastructure while accommodating legitimate traffic.

Principle of Least Privilege/Smallest Necessary

This is the golden rule for any security or resource management configuration. Don't set limits arbitrarily high "just in case."

• Identify Actual Requirements: Collaborate closely with application developers to determine the absolute maximum legitimate payload size for each specific api endpoint or application. For instance, a user profile update api might only need a few kilobytes, whereas a document upload service might genuinely require tens or even hundreds of megabytes.
• Start Small, Scale Up: If you're unsure, begin with a conservative, reasonably small limit (e.g., 1MB or 5MB) that you know most common requests will fit into. Then, monitor for 413 errors. If legitimate applications consistently hit this limit, gradually increase it only for those specific paths or services, documenting the rationale.
• Differentiate by API Functionality: A file upload api needs a higher limit than a simple data retrieval api. Treat each api as a unique entity with its own traffic profile and requirements. Your api gateway should reflect this granularity.

Granular Control: Avoid Blanket Increases

While global defaults are useful, relying solely on them can be detrimental.

• Leverage Per-Ingress or Per-Path Configuration: Most Ingress Controllers, as we've seen, allow you to specify limits for individual Ingress resources or even specific paths within an Ingress. This is the preferred method. A global limit of 100m might protect you from some DoS attacks, but it also allows potentially harmful 99MB payloads to reach all your microservices, even those that only expect 1KB.
• Global Defaults for Baseline Security: Use a conservative global default as a baseline security measure. This catches any ingress resources or services that haven't been explicitly configured. However, never rely on this global setting for applications with specific large payload requirements; configure them explicitly.
• Why Global Settings Are Dangerous: A very high global limit exposes all your backend services to large payloads. A low global limit might cause legitimate large requests to fail across unrelated services. Granularity is key to balancing security and functionality.

Application-Level Awareness: The Full Stack Perspective

The Ingress Controller is just one piece of the puzzle. The entire chain, from client to application to database, must be considered.

• Communicate with Developers: Engage with application development teams to understand their api contracts, expected payload sizes, and any internal limits they enforce. This prevents surprises and ensures a consistent configuration from the gateway to the backend.
• Backend Application Limits: Ensure your backend applications also have appropriate request size limits configured. It's often a good practice for the application's limit to be slightly higher than the Ingress Controller's limit. This way, the Ingress Controller (as the gateway) acts as the first line of defense, but if a request somehow bypasses it (e.g., internal service-to-service communication not going through Ingress), the application still has its own safeguard.
• Database and Storage Limits: Consider if very large requests eventually lead to large data being stored. Ensure your database, object storage (e.g., S3), or file system can handle the resulting data volume.
• Consistent Error Handling: Ensure that 413 errors generated by the Ingress Controller are handled gracefully by client applications and, if possible, provide user-friendly messages.

Monitoring and Alerting: The Eyes and Ears of Your System

You can't manage what you don't measure. Robust monitoring is essential for effective request size limit management.

• Monitor 413 Errors: Set up alerts for an increase in HTTP 413 Payload Too Large errors. A sudden spike might indicate an attack or a new application deployment with unexpected large payloads. These errors are a direct signal that your limits are being hit.
• Track Request Sizes: If your Ingress Controller or api gateway (e.g., through Prometheus metrics) can expose metrics on request body sizes, monitor these. This can help you identify trends or unusually large requests that are being allowed but might be consuming excessive resources.
• Log Analysis: Regularly review Ingress Controller access logs for status codes, especially 413s. Look for patterns in source IPs, user agents, and requested paths associated with large requests.
• Tools Integration: Leverage tools like Prometheus for metrics collection, Grafana for visualization and dashboards, and a centralized logging solution (e.g., ELK stack, Splunk, Loki) for detailed log analysis.

Security Considerations: Beyond Simple Prevention

Request size limits are a basic but fundamental security mechanism. They should be part of a broader security strategy.

• DDoS Protection Layers: Ingress Controller limits are a layer of defense against DoS. For more sophisticated DDoS attacks, consider integrating with specialized DDoS protection services (e.g., Cloudflare, Akamai) that operate upstream of your Kubernetes cluster.
• Web Application Firewalls (WAFs): If your Ingress Controller supports WAF-like capabilities or you integrate with an external WAF, these can provide deeper inspection of payloads. However, remember that WAFs often require the entire request body to be buffered for inspection, so size limits still apply and help prevent WAFs themselves from being overwhelmed. Some api gateway products offer integrated WAF capabilities.
• Input Validation at Application Level: Always perform robust input validation at the application level. Size limits prevent the transmission of oversized payloads; application-level validation ensures that the content of allowed payloads is safe and conforms to expectations.

Testing and Validation: Proactive Assurance

Don't wait for production incidents to discover misconfigurations.

• Load Testing: Incorporate tests with maximum expected payload sizes into your load testing strategy. Simulate scenarios where many users upload large files concurrently. This helps identify bottlenecks and validate your limits under pressure.
• Edge Case Testing: Specifically test edge cases: requests just under the limit, requests exactly at the limit, and requests just over the limit. Verify that the system behaves as expected (200 OK, 413 Payload Too Large).
• CI/CD Integration: Integrate automated tests for request size limits into your CI/CD pipelines. This ensures that new apis or changes to existing ones don't inadvertently introduce vulnerabilities or break existing functionality due to incorrect limits.
• Regular Audits: Periodically audit your Ingress and api gateway configurations to ensure limits are still appropriate given evolving application requirements and threat landscapes.

Documentation: The Institutional Knowledge Keeper

Good documentation is invaluable for operational consistency and troubleshooting.

• Document Configured Limits: Clearly document the request size limits configured for each Ingress, api, or application, along with the rationale behind those limits.
• Version Control: Store your Kubernetes manifests (Ingress resources, ConfigMaps) in version control (Git) to track changes and roll back if necessary.
• Operational Runbooks: Include information about request size limits in your operational runbooks, especially for incident response related to 413 errors.

By embracing these best practices, you transform request size limits from a reactive troubleshooting point into a proactive pillar of your Kubernetes infrastructure's performance, security, and reliability. This meticulous approach ensures your gateway operates as an efficient, secure, and predictable entry point for all your api and application traffic.

Advanced Scenarios and Considerations

While basic request size limits cover many common use cases, certain advanced scenarios and architectural patterns require a deeper understanding and more nuanced configuration. These include handling massive file uploads, the intricacies of modern protocols like WebSockets and gRPC, and the strategic distinction between Ingress Controllers and specialized api gateway solutions.

File Uploads: A Challenge of Scale

File uploads represent one of the most common reasons for needing higher request size limits. Whether it's user avatars, documents, videos, or backups, modern applications frequently deal with payloads that can range from a few kilobytes to several gigabytes.

• Dedicated Upload Endpoints: For applications requiring large file uploads, it's often best practice to create dedicated api endpoints (e.g., /upload, /files) with appropriately higher request size limits. This avoids unnecessarily raising the limit for all other apis.
• Streaming vs. Buffering: Traditional Ingress Controllers (like Nginx) typically buffer the entire request body before forwarding it to the backend service. For very large files (e.g., hundreds of MBs or GBs), this can quickly exhaust the memory of the Ingress Controller pod.
  • Disable Request Buffering: Many Ingress Controllers offer options to disable request buffering (e.g., nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/proxy-request-buffering: "off" for Nginx). When buffering is off, the gateway attempts to stream the request body directly to the upstream service as it arrives, significantly reducing memory footprint on the Ingress Controller itself. However, this might limit some api gateway features like WAF inspection or advanced routing that require processing the entire body.
  • Direct Upload to Object Storage: For extremely large files, the most robust solution is often to bypass the Ingress Controller and backend application altogether for the file transfer itself. The client first makes a small api call to your backend to obtain a pre-signed URL (e.g., for AWS S3, Azure Blob Storage, Google Cloud Storage). The client then directly uploads the file to the object storage service using this URL. Once the upload is complete, the client notifies your backend api of the file's location. This offloads the heavy lifting of large data transfer from your Kubernetes cluster, making your gateway more efficient and scalable.
• Chunked Uploads: For very slow or unreliable connections, implementing chunked uploads at the client side (breaking the file into smaller pieces) can improve resilience, as individual chunks can be retried. The backend api then reassembles these chunks.

WebSockets and gRPC: Beyond Traditional HTTP Bodies

While most of this discussion focuses on HTTP request bodies, it's important to consider how these limits interact with other protocols often handled by Ingress Controllers or api gateways.

• WebSockets: WebSockets establish a persistent, bidirectional communication channel over a single TCP connection. Once the handshake is complete, subsequent messages are not HTTP requests with bodies in the traditional sense. Request body size limits generally apply only to the initial HTTP upgrade request. However, the Ingress Controller/gateway still needs to manage the underlying TCP connection and can have limits on message sizes or connection durations. For example, an Nginx Ingress Controller might have proxy_read_timeout and proxy_send_timeout that affect WebSocket connections.
• gRPC: gRPC is a high-performance, open-source RPC framework that uses HTTP/2 for transport. HTTP/2 multiplexes multiple requests over a single TCP connection, and gRPC messages are serialized and sent as HTTP/2 frames. Similar to WebSockets, the "request body" concept is less direct. While gRPC messages do have sizes, they are often streamed. Envoy-based controllers (like those used by Istio or Emissary-API Gateway) are particularly well-suited for gRPC and provide configurations for message size limits at the stream level (max_concurrent_streams, max_stream_duration, max_request_bytes for the initial request). The api gateway often needs to understand HTTP/2 framing to properly apply limits.

API Gateways vs. Ingress Controllers: A Strategic Distinction

The terms Ingress Controller and API Gateway are often used interchangeably, but they represent distinct, though sometimes overlapping, functionalities. Understanding this difference is crucial for designing a robust architecture.

• Ingress Controller: Primarily focused on Layer 7 routing (HTTP/HTTPS) from outside the cluster to services inside. It handles hostname/path-based routing, SSL termination, and basic load balancing. Its core function is to be the entry point or gateway into Kubernetes.
• API Gateway: A more specialized and feature-rich gateway that sits in front of your apis. While it performs routing like an Ingress Controller, it adds a wealth of api management capabilities:
  • Authentication and Authorization: JWT validation, OAuth2 integration.
  • Rate Limiting: Controlling the number of requests clients can make.
  • Traffic Management: Canary deployments, A/B testing, circuit breaking.
  • Request/Response Transformation: Modifying headers, payload content.
  • Monitoring and Analytics: Detailed api usage data, error rates.
  • Developer Portal: Documentation, SDKs for api consumers.
  • Security Policies: WAF, threat protection.

When to use which (or both):

• For simple HTTP/HTTPS routing to web applications or basic REST apis, an Ingress Controller is often sufficient and cost-effective.
• When you need advanced api management, robust security for your apis, granular control over api traffic, and a developer-friendly interface, an API Gateway is the superior choice. An API Gateway might itself be exposed via an Ingress Controller.

This is where solutions like APIPark come into play. APIPark is an open-source AI gateway and API management platform that significantly extends the capabilities of a basic Ingress Controller, particularly for modern API ecosystems, including those involving AI services. While an Ingress Controller manages the outer perimeter of your Kubernetes cluster, APIPark can act as a more intelligent, inner gateway specifically for your APIs.

APIPark offers powerful features that go beyond what a typical Ingress Controller provides:

• Unified AI Model Integration: It can integrate 100+ AI models with a unified management system, simplifying the deployment and invocation of AI APIs.
• Prompt Encapsulation into REST API: Imagine turning a complex AI prompt into a simple REST api endpoint. APIPark enables this, abstracting away the AI specifics and presenting a standard api interface.
• End-to-End API Lifecycle Management: From design to publication, invocation, and decommissioning, APIPark provides comprehensive tools to govern your APIs, handling traffic forwarding, load balancing, and versioning, which are often more advanced than Ingress Controller capabilities.
• Detailed API Call Logging and Data Analysis: While Ingress Controllers offer basic access logs, APIPark provides extensive logging of every api call, crucial for troubleshooting and performance analysis, and offers powerful data analytics to identify trends and prevent issues.
• Tenant Isolation and Approval Workflows: For multi-tenant environments or scenarios requiring strict access control, APIPark allows for independent APIs and permissions per tenant, and even requires approval for api resource access, adding a robust layer of security and governance.

In an architecture using APIPark, the Ingress Controller might still serve as the initial entry point, directing all api traffic to the APIPark gateway. APIPark then takes over, applying its advanced policies, managing access, routing to the correct backend services (which could be AI models or traditional REST services), and handling the nuances of payload processing, including enforcing more specific api body size limits or transformations tailored to the api's contract. This layered approach ensures both efficient cluster entry and sophisticated api governance.

CDN Integration: Optimizing Edge Delivery

Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) are vital for serving static assets and frequently accessed content with low latency. When integrating a CDN, remember:

• CDN is Upstream: The CDN sits in front of your Ingress Controller. Request size limits you configure on your Ingress Controller apply to requests reaching your origin (the Kubernetes cluster), not to requests between the client and the CDN edge.
• Limits for Origin: Ensure your Ingress Controller's request size limits are appropriate for the traffic that does reach your origin – typically dynamic api calls or cache-misses for static assets.
• Large File Delivery: For large file downloads, CDNs often have direct upload/download capabilities or can stream files from your origin more efficiently than routing through your primary api gateway.

Microservices Architecture: Internal Communication

In a microservices environment, services often communicate with each other directly or through a service mesh, potentially bypassing the Ingress Controller (which is typically for external traffic).

• Internal Gateway/Service Mesh: If you use a service mesh (e.g., Istio, Linkerd), the sidecar proxies or internal gateways might also have their own request size limits. Ensure consistency between your external Ingress Controller and your internal mesh configuration to avoid unexpected failures.
• Direct Service-to-Service Calls: If services communicate directly without a mesh or internal gateway, then each service's HTTP server needs to enforce its own request size limits, as no upstream gateway will be performing this function.

By considering these advanced scenarios and understanding the interplay between different components of your infrastructure, you can implement a truly resilient, high-performance, and secure api ecosystem. The judicious use of Ingress Controllers and specialized api gateways like APIPark allows for a sophisticated multi-layered approach to traffic management and security.

Practical Walkthrough: Configuring Nginx Ingress Controller

To solidify our understanding, let's delve into a practical example using the Nginx Ingress Controller, which is widely adopted. We'll examine key configuration aspects relevant to request body sizes and related timeouts, illustrating how specific annotations translate to Nginx directives.

The following table summarizes common annotations and their impact, providing a quick reference for practitioners. Following the table, we'll expand on each point with more detail.

Configuration Aspect	Description	Example (Nginx Ingress Annotation)	Impact on Request Processing
proxy-body-size	Sets the maximum allowed size of the client request body. If a request body exceeds this limit, Nginx returns a 413 (Payload Too Large) error. Essential for preventing resource exhaustion and DoS attacks.	nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/proxy-body-size: "10m"	Directly controls the largest HTTP request body that the Ingress Controller (acting as the gateway) will accept. Prevents oversized payloads from reaching backend services, safeguarding memory and CPU resources.
proxy-buffering	Controls whether Nginx buffers responses from the proxied server. When "on" (default), Nginx buffers the full response before sending it to the client. "off" allows streaming responses directly.	nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/proxy-buffering: "on"	Impacts how Nginx handles responses (not requests). "on" (default) can improve performance for slow backends (Nginx sends faster to client) but uses more Ingress memory. "off" is good for real-time streaming or when backend controls chunking. Less direct impact on request size, but important for overall large data transfer.
large-client-header-buffers	(ConfigMap) Sets the number and size of buffers for reading large client request headers. This is a global setting usually applied via the Nginx Ingress Controller's ConfigMap.	data.large-client-header-buffers: "4 16k" (in ConfigMap)	Addresses requests with many headers or very large individual headers (e.g., long cookie strings, large JWTs). Prevents 400 Bad Request errors due to header overflow at the gateway level. Independent of body size but critical for request processing.
proxy-read-timeout	Defines the timeout for reading a response from the proxied server (backend). If the backend doesn't send anything within this time, the connection is closed.	nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/proxy-read-timeout: "120s"	Important for apis that might take a long time to process and return a response. Prevents the Ingress Controller from indefinitely waiting for a slow backend, freeing up resources. Should be set higher than the expected maximum processing time of the backend api.
proxy-send-timeout	Sets the timeout for transmitting a request to the proxied server. If the backend doesn't read the request body from Nginx within this time, the connection is closed.	nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/proxy-send-timeout: "120s"	Crucial for large uploads. If the backend is slow to consume the request body that Nginx is forwarding, this timeout prevents Nginx from being stuck indefinitely. Ensures that Nginx can efficiently send the buffered or streamed request to the backend.
proxy-request-buffering	Controls whether Nginx buffers the client request body before sending it to the upstream server. When "on" (default), Nginx buffers the entire body. "off" attempts to stream it.	nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/proxy-request-buffering: "off"	Directly impacts memory usage for large requests. "on" (default) allows for features like WAF processing or request rewriting, but consumes Ingress memory for the entire body. "off" is ideal for very large file uploads to minimize Ingress Controller memory, but may limit other api gateway features that require full body access.
client-header-buffer-size	(ConfigMap) Sets the size of the buffer for reading client request header. Often works in conjunction with large-client-header-buffers.	data.client-header-buffer-size: "8k" (in ConfigMap)	Defines the primary buffer size for parsing request headers. If headers exceed this, large-client-header-buffers come into play. A global setting, often tuned for general header sizes.
client-body-buffer-size	(ConfigMap) Sets the size of the buffer for reading client request body. If the body is larger than this buffer, Nginx will either write it to a temporary file (if client_body_in_file_only is off) or stream it.	data.client-body-buffer-size: "128k" (in ConfigMap)	This buffer is used before the proxy-body-size check. It defines the in-memory buffer for request bodies. Larger bodies will be spilled to disk, impacting performance, or rejected if proxy-body-size is exceeded. Crucial for the initial handling of request bodies.

Let's elaborate on some of these directives in the context of our Ingress Controller.

nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/proxy-body-size: "10m"

This annotation directly translates to Nginx's client_max_body_size directive within the generated server or location block. It sets the hard upper limit for the size of the request body. If a request comes in with a body larger than 10 megabytes, the Nginx Ingress Controller will immediately terminate the connection and return an HTTP 413 error. This is your primary defense against oversized payloads and a fundamental part of your api gateway configuration. Choosing the right value requires balancing your application's legitimate needs (e.g., file uploads) against the desire to prevent resource exhaustion and DoS attacks.

nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/proxy-read-timeout: "120s" and proxy-send-timeout: "120s"

While not directly about request size, these timeouts are crucial when dealing with potentially large or long-processing requests, especially in api interactions. * proxy-read-timeout: This timeout applies to the backend server. If your backend service takes 90 seconds to process a large request and respond, but this timeout is set to 60 seconds, the Ingress Controller will prematurely close the connection, resulting in a 504 Gateway Timeout error, even if the backend eventually succeeds. * proxy-send-timeout: This timeout applies to how long Nginx waits for the backend to accept the request body. For large uploads, if Nginx is streaming the request body to a slow backend, this timeout prevents Nginx from waiting indefinitely.

Correctly tuning these timeouts is essential for the reliability of long-running apis or apis that process large amounts of data. They act as a critical control point at the gateway layer to manage client expectations and backend behavior.

nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/proxy-request-buffering: "off"

This is a powerful annotation, especially for scenarios involving very large file uploads (e.g., hundreds of MBs or gigabytes). By default, proxy-request-buffering is "on" for Nginx. This means the Ingress Controller (Nginx) will fully buffer the entire client request body into memory (and potentially disk if it exceeds client-body-buffer-size) before it begins sending it to your backend service.

Setting it to "off" instructs Nginx to attempt to stream the request body to the upstream server as it arrives from the client. This significantly reduces the memory footprint on the Ingress Controller for large requests, as it doesn't need to hold the entire file in RAM.

Considerations for proxy-request-buffering: "off": * Memory Reduction: Great for large uploads. * Limited Features: When buffering is off, certain Nginx api gateway features that require full body access (like WAF inspection, request body rewriting, or some forms of authentication) might not work or behave unpredictably. * Backend Compatibility: Your backend service must be capable of handling streamed requests. If it expects to receive the entire body at once, setting this to "off" could cause issues. * Error Handling: Nginx might not be able to send a 413 error immediately if proxy-body-size is exceeded, as it's streaming. The error might occur later or be handled by the backend if the body grows too large mid-stream.

client-header-buffer-size and large-client-header-buffers (ConfigMap directives)

These directives manage the maximum size of HTTP headers, not the body. While conceptually distinct, excessively large headers can also cause gateway issues, often leading to 400 Bad Request errors.

• client-header-buffer-size: Sets the size of the initial buffer Nginx uses for reading the client request header.
• large-client-header-buffers: If the initial header buffer is insufficient, Nginx allocates a specified number of larger buffers. For example, 4 16k means four buffers, each 16 kilobytes in size, for reading large client headers. This is crucial for applications that send many cookies, large authentication tokens (like very long JWTs), or custom headers that can grow in size.

These are global settings defined in the Nginx Ingress Controller's ConfigMap, as they typically apply across all server blocks.

In conclusion, managing request size limits with the Nginx Ingress Controller (or any other gateway) involves a careful blend of specific annotations for per-Ingress control, global ConfigMap settings for default behaviors and advanced directives, and a thorough understanding of related timeouts and buffering mechanisms. This practical approach, combined with the best practices discussed earlier, ensures a robust and efficient api delivery system.

Conclusion

The journey through Ingress Controller upper limit request size best practices underscores a fundamental truth in infrastructure management: seemingly minor configurations can have monumental impacts on the performance, security, and reliability of your applications. The Ingress Controller, serving as the critical gateway to your Kubernetes services, is not merely a traffic router but a vital control point where crucial decisions about incoming api and application traffic are made.

We've explored the profound "why" behind these limits, revealing how their absence or misconfiguration can open doors to resource exhaustion, debilitating DoS attacks, and unpredictable system instability. From the meticulous precision required for Nginx Ingress annotations to the declarative power of Envoy-based CRDs and the middleware flexibility of Traefik, each Ingress Controller offers unique mechanisms to enforce these boundaries. The common thread, however, remains the same: thoughtful, granular, and continuously monitored configuration is non-negotiable.

Implementing best practices such as the principle of least privilege, leveraging granular control, maintaining application-level awareness, and establishing robust monitoring and alerting systems are not merely recommendations; they are imperatives for creating a resilient Kubernetes environment. Furthermore, understanding advanced scenarios like large file uploads and the strategic distinction between a simple Ingress Controller and a full-fledged api gateway like APIPark empowers you to build even more sophisticated and secure architectures. Solutions like APIPark, with their advanced API lifecycle management, security features, and deep analytics, provide an intelligent layer of governance that complements the foundational routing provided by an Ingress Controller, particularly in complex API ecosystems involving AI services.

Ultimately, the goal is to strike a delicate balance: enabling legitimate data flows for your applications while vigilantly protecting your infrastructure from overload and malicious intent. By diligently applying these principles and constantly adapting your configurations based on observed patterns and evolving requirements, you ensure that your gateway acts as a strong, efficient, and secure entry point, underpinning the successful operation of your entire cloud-native ecosystem. The ongoing diligence in managing these limits is an investment in the long-term health and predictability of your digital services.

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. What is the primary purpose of setting request size limits on an Ingress Controller? The primary purpose is to protect your Kubernetes cluster and backend services from resource exhaustion, Denial of Service (DoS) attacks, and unexpected application behavior caused by excessively large incoming request bodies. The Ingress Controller, acting as a gateway, prevents these oversized requests from consuming unnecessary CPU, memory, and network resources.

2. What happens if a request exceeds the configured size limit? When an incoming HTTP request's body exceeds the configured limit on the Ingress Controller, the controller will typically reject the request and respond with an HTTP 413 Payload Too Large status code to the client. This prevents the large payload from reaching and potentially overwhelming your backend application.

3. Should I set request size limits globally or per-Ingress/per-path? It is generally best practice to use a combination of both. Set a conservative global default limit via the Ingress Controller's ConfigMap for baseline security, catching any unconfigured services. However, for specific applications or apis that legitimately require larger payloads (e.g., file uploads), use per-Ingress or per-path annotations to set higher, tailored limits. This provides granular control and avoids unnecessarily high limits across all services.

4. How do API Gateways like APIPark relate to Ingress Controller request size limits? An Ingress Controller primarily handles basic L7 routing into the Kubernetes cluster. An API Gateway like APIPark offers more advanced api management features (authentication, rate limiting, analytics, api lifecycle management) in front of your apis. An Ingress Controller might route all api traffic to APIPark, which then applies its own, more granular api policies, including potentially more sophisticated request size and content validation, before forwarding to the backend services. In this layered approach, the Ingress provides the initial gateway entry, and APIPark provides advanced api governance.

5. Besides proxy-body-size, what other Nginx Ingress Controller settings are important for handling large requests? Beyond nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/proxy-body-size, other crucial settings include: * nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/proxy-read-timeout and proxy-send-timeout for managing backend response and request transmission durations. * nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/proxy-request-buffering (setting to "off" for large file streaming). * Global ConfigMap settings like client-header-buffer-size and large-client-header-buffers for managing large HTTP headers, which are distinct from body size but equally important for preventing 400 errors at the gateway.

🚀You can securely and efficiently call the OpenAI API on APIPark in just two steps:

Step 1: Deploy the APIPark AI gateway in 5 minutes.

APIPark is developed based on Golang, offering strong product performance and low development and maintenance costs. You can deploy APIPark with a single command line.

curl -sSO https://download.apipark.com/install/quick-start.sh; bash quick-start.sh

In my experience, you can see the successful deployment interface within 5 to 10 minutes. Then, you can log in to APIPark using your account.

Step 2: Call the OpenAI API.