Open Stack

Inline...

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Yapeng Wu <Yapeng.Wu at huawei.com> wrote:

>  Hello, Sumit,****
>
> ** **
>
> Regarding of “* It might be helpful to model firewall instance to
> firewall_policy relationship as 1:many”****
>
> **
>
Sumit: It was suggested that the tenant might feel the need to apply
multiple pre-created policies in the same firewall instance. That said,
combining multiple policies will be done by the actual (backend) firewall,
not by Quantum.


**
>
> Can you elaborate in what user case this is required?****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Yapeng****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Sumit Naiksatam [mailto:sumitnaiksatam at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 04, 2013 8:34 PM
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Quantum] Quantum Firewall Service****
>
> ** **
>
> Just wanted to give an update on the call today - we had a fairly large
> number of people attending from PayPal, VMware, Cisco, Big Switch (to name
> a few that I noted).****
>
> Discussion notes:****
>
> * Decided to focus in the firewall_rule attributes - current definition of
> attributes is not clear. Although the intent is to capture these as
> flexible placeholder objects, the document is not very indicative. Needs to
> be articulated better (e.g. source_ip_address should just be a "source"
> string).****
>
> * Need a little more deliberation on which attributes in the
> firewall_rules need to form the core set of attributes; other lesser
> used/vendor-centric attributes can be modeled as "extended attributes".***
> *
>
> * The zone attribute/resource definition needs to be expanded.****
>
> * It might be more practical to model a firewall_rule to firewall_policy
> relationship as 1:1. If we take that approach, it might be helpful to have
> a sequence number attribute in the firewall_rule.****
>
> * It might be helpful to model firewall instance to firewall_policy
> relationship as 1:many****
>
> * The firewall resource as expressed in the model is a logical instance in
> the Quantum model. It's mapping to a physical/virtual appliance is left to
> the backend.****
>
> * Details on use cases are required. Will help to validate against the
> model.****
>
> In general, we seem to have a decent start to the base model. No major
> objections on the workflow.****
>
> We will continue to have discussions over emails, and have another call
> next week.****
>
> Please feel free to add anything I might have missed.****
>
> Thanks,****
>
> ~Sumit.****
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Sumit Naiksatam <sumitnaiksatam at gmail.com>
> wrote:****
>
> We have set up a conference call scheduled for Thursday April 4th to
> discuss this topic as a preparation for the upcoming summit.****
>
> ** **
>
> Agenda:****
>
> Current draft: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Quantum/FWaaS/API****
>
> ** **
>
> Logistics (thanks to Vinay/Anand, PayPal):****
>
> ** **
>
> Where: Conference Bridge - (855) 227 1767 x 7152259****
>
> When: Thursday, April 04, 2013 2:00 PM-3:00 PM. (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
>  Where: Conference Bridge - (855) 227 1767 x 7152259****
>
>  Conf. Code 7152259****
>
>  Phones Numbers:****
>
>  **·        **(855) 227-1767(USA) - 08003765931(UK) ****
>
> **·        **0008006103229 (India – Toll Free)****
>
> **·        **81080024322044 (Moscow), 4992701688(Moscow)****
>
> Web Conf: https://myroom-na.adobeconnect.com/anandpalanisamy/ ****
>
> More Numbers:
> https://www.intercallonline.com/portlets/scheduling/viewNumbers/listNumbersByCode.do?confCode=7152259&name=&email=&selectedProduct=joinMeeting
> ****
>
> Thanks,****
>
> ~Sumit.****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130405/223f77d9/attachment.html>