Is it on purpose we can duplicate backend ref in a Route ?

[ivanmatmati]

Consider this HTTPRoute:

apiVersion: gateway.networking.k8s.io/v1
kind: HTTPRoute
metadata:
  name: route-hello-world-exact
  namespace: httproutes
spec:
  parentRefs:
  - name: hug-gateway
    sectionName: http
  hostnames:
  - "exact.haproxy.local"
  rules:
  - matches:
    - path:
        type: Exact
        value: /hostname
    backendRefs:
    - group: ""
      kind: Service
      name: hello-world-exact
      port: 80
      weight: 1
    - group: ""
      kind: Service
      name: hello-world-exact
      port: 80
      weight: 5
   

Is it ok and intended that we can insert twice the same backendRef ? It can complicate the processing for controller and it could be a permissive entry that could hide some mistake from the user. If not intended but just the result of a limitation, how should we handle that in a controller? Rejection, last wins, etc ?

[howardjohn]

IMO this is expected to be allowed. The same backend could have multiple different policies, filters, etc associated with it.

…

On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 8:52 AM ivanmatmati ***@***.***> wrote: Consider this HTTPRoute: apiVersion: gateway.networking.k8s.io/v1kind: HTTPRoutemetadata: name: route-hello-world-exact namespace: httproutesspec: parentRefs: - name: hug-gateway sectionName: http hostnames: - "exact.haproxy.local" rules: - matches: - path: type: Exact value: /hostname backendRefs: - group: "" kind: Service name: hello-world-exact port: 80 weight: 1 - group: "" kind: Service name: hello-world-exact port: 80 weight: 5 Is it ok and intended that we can insert twice the same backendRef ? It can complicate the processing for controller and it could be a permissive entry that could hide some mistake from the user. If not intended but just the result of a limitation, how should we handle that in a controller? Rejection, last wins, etc ? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#4492>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEYGXLLN5JEPLWDKY25EC34KNDITAVCNFSM6AAAAACUDCQ366VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ERDJONRXK43TNFXW4OZZGQZTEOJQGI> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[robscott]

It does feel a bit funky, but I tend to agree with @howardjohn here. Even if we did want to change this, we're stuck with what we have now that the API is GA and we can't tighten validation here. We could potentially offer an optional VAP that was more restrictive and could prevent common mistakes like this - my guess is that the majority of times this happens it will be a copy + paste mistake.