[openstack-dev] [Neturon] firewall_driver and ML2 and vif_security discussion
nachi at ntti3.com
Thu Jan 16 19:37:58 UTC 2014
2014/1/16 Amir Sadoughi <amir.sadoughi at rackspace.com>:
> Hi all,
> I just want to make sure I understand the plan and its consequences. I’m on board with the YAGNI principle of hardwiring mechanism drivers to return their firewall_driver types for now.
> However, after (A), (B), and (C) are completed, to allow for Open vSwitch-based security groups (blueprint ovs-firewall-driver) is it correct to say: we’ll need to implement a method such that the ML2 mechanism driver is aware of its agents and each of the agents' configured firewall_driver? i.e. additional RPC communication?
> From yesterday’s meeting: <http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_ml2/2014/networking_ml2.2014-01-15-16.00.log.html>
> 16:44:17 <rkukura> I've suggested that the L2 agent could get the vif_security info from its firewall_driver, and include this in its agents_db info
> 16:44:39 <rkukura> then the bound MD would return this as the vif_security for the port
> 16:45:47 <rkukura> existing agents_db RPC would send it from agent to server and store it in the agents_db table
> Does the above suggestion change with the plan as-is now? From Nachi’s response, it seemed like maybe we should support concurrent firewall_driver instances in a single agent. i.e. don’t statically configure firewall_driver in the agent, but let the MD choose the firewall_driver for the port based on what firewall_drivers the agent supports.
Let's say we have OpenFlowBasedFirewallDriver and
IptablesBasedFirewallDriver in future.
I believe there is no usecase to let user to select such
implementation detail by host.
so it is enough if we have a config security_group_mode=(openflow or
iptables) in OVS MD configuration, then update vif_security based on
> On Jan 16, 2014, at 11:42 AM, Nachi Ueno <nachi at ntti3.com> wrote:
>> Hi Mathieu, Bob
>> Thank you for your reply
>> OK let's do (A) - (C) for now.
>> (A) Remove firewall_driver from server side
>> Remove Noop <-- I'll write patch for this
>> (B) update ML2 with extend_port_dict <-- Bob will push new review for this
>> (C) Fix vif_security patch using (1) and (2). <-- I'll update the
>> patch after (A) and (B) merged
>> # config is hardwired for each mech drivers for now
>> (Optional D) Rething firewall_driver config in the agent
>> 2014/1/16 Robert Kukura <rkukura at redhat.com>:
>>> On 01/16/2014 04:43 AM, Mathieu Rohon wrote:
>>>> your proposals make sense. Having the firewall driver configuring so
>>>> much things looks pretty stange.
>>> Agreed. I fully support proposed fix 1, adding enable_security_group
>>> config, at least for ml2. I'm not sure whether making this sort of
>>> change go the openvswitch or linuxbridge plugins at this stage is needed.
>>>> Enabling security group should be a plugin/MD decision, not a driver decision.
>>> I'm not so sure I support proposed fix 2, removing firewall_driver
>>> configuration. I think with proposed fix 1, firewall_driver becomes an
>>> agent-only configuration variable, which seems fine to me, at least for
>>> now. The people working on ovs-firewall-driver need something like this
>>> to choose the between their new driver and the iptables driver. Each L2
>>> agent could obviously revisit this later if needed.
>>>> For ML2, in a first implementation, having vif security based on
>>>> vif_type looks good too.
>>> I'm not convinced to support proposed fix 3, basing ml2's vif_security
>>> on the value of vif_type. It seems to me that if vif_type was all that
>>> determines how nova handles security groups, there would be no need for
>>> either the old capabilities or new vif_security port attribute.
>>> I think each ML2 bound MechanismDriver should be able to supply whatever
>>> vif_security (or capabilities) value it needs. It should be free to
>>> determine that however it wants. It could be made configurable on the
>>> server-side as Mathieu suggest below, or could be kept configurable in
>>> the L2 agent and transmitted via agents_db RPC to the MechanismDriver in
>>> the server as I have previously suggested.
>>> As an initial step, until we really have multiple firewall drivers to
>>> choose from, I think we can just hardwire each agent-based
>>> MechanismDriver to return the correct vif_security value for its normal
>>> firewall driver, as we currently do for the capabilities attribute.
>>> Also note that I really like the extend_port_dict() MechanismDriver
>>> methods in Nachi's current patch set. This is a much nicer way for the
>>> bound MechanismDriver to return binding-specific attributes than what
>>> ml2 currently does for vif_type and capabilities. I'm working on a patch
>>> taking that part of Nachi's code, fixing a few things, and extending it
>>> to handle the vif_type attribute as well as the current capabilities
>>> attribute. I'm hoping to post at least a WIP version of this today.
>>> I do support hardwiring the other plugins to return specific
>>> vif_security values, but those values may need to depend on the value of
>>> enable_security_group from proposal 1.
>>>> Once OVSfirewallDriver will be available, the firewall drivers that
>>>> the operator wants to use should be in a MD config file/section and
>>>> ovs MD could bind one of the firewall driver during
>>>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Nachi Ueno <nachi at ntti3.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi folks
>>>>> Security group for OVS agent (ovs plugin or ML2) is being broken.
>>>>> so we need vif_security port binding to fix this
>>>>> We got discussed about the architecture for ML2 on ML2 weekly meetings, and
>>>>> I wanna continue discussion in here.
>>>>> Here is my proposal for how to fix it.
>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
More information about the OpenStack-dev