Docker Provider vs. File Provider for Version-Stable Routing

When upgrading Traefik Proxy across major versions, maintaining routing stability is critical. The static configuration defines the entry points and providers, while the dynamic configuration handles the actual routing rules and middleware.

There is a design trade-off between utilizing the Docker Provider for automatic service discovery and the File Provider for explicit routing definitions. The Docker Provider simplifies deployment by using container labels, but it introduces a dependency on how the new Traefik binary interprets those labels during an upgrade. Conversely, the File Provider decouples the routing logic from the container orchestration, potentially offering a more predictable recovery path if a version upgrade causes label misinterpretation.

Given a requirement for maximum predictability during a version migration, which approach provides better isolation against breaking changes in provider-specific syntax?

• Does the File Provider significantly reduce the risk of routing outages compared to label-based discovery during major version jumps?
• What are the implications for configuration persistence when switching between these providers during a recovery event?