[release-1.30] Multi-slb related bug fixes

[nilo19]

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

1. All endpointslices of a local service should be included in local backend pool updater, instead of only the first endpointslice.
2. In some rare cases, migration from NIC to IP-based LB can be in a middle state where the NIC references are removed, but those IPConfigs in the backend pool are not. In this case, we should manually exclude those IPConfigs from the request body.
3. localServiceOwnsBackendPool should compare the full backend pool name, not just prefix, because two service names can share the same prefix.
4. There is a corner case when the cluster is being updated to multi-slb from classic NIC-based single lb, not from an IP-based cluster. In this case, if the service being reconciled is local, the cloud provider will try to update a NIC pool to IP-based pool direct, which is not allowed. We should skip adding IPs to NIC-based pool in multi-slb mode.
5. There is a bug in ReconcileBackendPools, where we by mistake parse the LB name to use as the backend pool name.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #7113
Fixes #7200
Fixes #6980

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Fix: several bugs related to multiple standard load balancers mode.
1. All endpointslices of a local service should be included in local backend pool updater, instead of only the first endpointslice.
2. In some rare cases, migration from NIC to IP-based LB can be in a middle state where the NIC references are removed, but those IPConfigs in the backend pool are not. In this case, we should manually exclude those IPConfigs from the request body.
3. localServiceOwnsBackendPool should compare the full backend pool name, not just prefix, because two service names can share the same prefix.
4. There is a corner case when the cluster is being updated to multi-slb from classic NIC-based single lb, not from an IP-based cluster. In this case, if the service being reconciled is local, the cloud provider will try to update a NIC pool to IP-based pool direct, which is not allowed. We should skip adding IPs to NIC-based pool in multi-slb mode.
5. There is a bug in ReconcileBackendPools, where we by mistake parse the LB name to use as the backend pool name.

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: nilo19

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [nilo19]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[coveralls]

coverage: 76.117% (+0.02%) from 76.096%
when pulling 99ee0a6 on nilo19:fix/cherry-pick-7432-1-30
into 830f38c on kubernetes-sigs:release-1.30.

[k8s-ci-robot]

@nilo19: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
pull-cloud-provider-azure-e2e-capz-1-30	99ee0a6	link	true	/test pull-cloud-provider-azure-e2e-capz-1-30
pull-cloud-provider-azure-e2e-ccm-vmss-multi-slb-capz-1-30	99ee0a6	link	true	/test pull-cloud-provider-azure-e2e-ccm-vmss-multi-slb-capz-1-30

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.