Yes, a KubernetesService can expose multiple ports, and when it does, each port should have aunique, unambiguous name, makingBcorrect. In the Service spec, the ports field is an array, allowing you to define multiple port mappings (e.g., 80 for HTTP and 443 for HTTPS, or grpc and metrics). Each entry can include port (Service port), targetPort (backend Pod port), and protocol.
The naming requirement becomes important because Kubernetes needs to disambiguate ports, especially when other resources refer to them. For example, an Ingress backend or some proxies/controllers can reference Service ports byname. Also, when multiple ports exist, a name helps humans and automation reliably select the correct port. Kubernetes documentation and common practice recommend naming ports whenever there is more than one, and in several scenarios it’s effectively required to avoid ambiguity.
Option A is incorrect because multi-port Services are common and fully supported. Option C is insufficient: while different port numbers are necessary, naming is the correct distinguishing rule emphasized by Kubernetes patterns and required by some integrations. Option D is incorrect and nonsensical—Services can expose many ports and are not restricted to 443.
Operationally, exposing multiple ports through one Service is useful when a single backend workload provides multiple interfaces (e.g., application traffic and a metrics endpoint). You can keep stable discovery under one DNS name while still differentiating ports. The backend Pods must still listen on the target ports, and selectors determine which Pods are endpoints. The key correctness point for this question is:multi-port Services are allowed, and each port should be uniquely named to avoid confusion and integration issues.
=========
