Open Stack

Hi Aaron,

Please note that the user using the current reference implementation
doesn't need to create Networks, Ports, or anything else. As a matter of
fact, the mapping is done implicitly.

Also, I agree with Kevin when he says that this is a whole different
discussion.

Thanks,
Ivar.


On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Aaron Rosen <aaronorosen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ryan,
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Ryan Moats <rmoats at us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote on 08/06/2014 01:04:41 PM:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>> > AFAICT, there is nothing that can be done with the GBP API that cannot
>> > be done with the low-level regular Neutron API.
>>
>> I'll take you up on that, Jay :)
>>
>> How exactly do I specify behavior between two collections of ports
>> residing in the same IP subnet (an example of this is a bump-in-the-wire
>> network appliance).
>>
>> Would you mind explaining what behavior you want between the two
> collection of ports?
>
>
>>  I've looked around regular Neutron and all I've come up with so far is:
>>  (1) use security groups on the ports
>>  (2) set allow_overlapping_ips to true, set up two networks with
>> identical CIDR block subnets and disjoint allocation pools and put a
>> vRouter between them.
>>
>> Now #1 only works for basic allow/deny access and adds the complexity of
>> needing to specify per-IP address security rules, which means you need the
>> ports to have IP addresses already and then manually add them into the
>> security groups, which doesn't seem particularly very orchestration
>> friendly.
>>
>
> I believe the referential security group rules solve this problem (unless
> I'm not understanding):
>
> neutron security-group-create group1
> neutron security-group-create group2
>
> # allow members of group1 to ssh into group2 (but not the other way
> around):
> neutron security-group-rule-create --direction ingress --port-range-min 22
> --port-range-max 22 --protocol TCP --remote-group-id group1 group2
>
> # allow members of group2 to be able to access TCP 80 from members of
> group1 (but not the other way around):
> neutron security-group-rule-create --direction ingress --port-range-min 80
> --port-range-max 80 --protocol TCP --remote-group-id group2 group1
>
> # Now when you create ports just place these in the desired security
> groups and neutron will automatically handle this orchestration for you
> (and you don't have to deal with ip_addresses and updates).
>
> neutron port-create --security-groups group1 network1
> neutron port-create --security-groups group2 network1
>
>
>>
>> Now #2 handles both allow/deny access as well as provides a potential
>> attachment point for other behaviors, *but* you have to know to set up the
>> disjoint allocation pools, and your depending on your drivers to handle the
>> case of a router that isn't really a router (i.e. it's got two interfaces
>> in the same subnet, possibly with the same address (unless you thought of
>> that when you set things up)).
>>
>>
> Are you talking about the firewall as a service stuff here?
>
>
>>  You can say that both of these are *possible*, but they both look more
>> complex to me than just having two groups of ports and specifying a policy
>> between them.
>>
>
> Would you mind proposing how this is done in the Group policy api? From
> what I can tell in the new proposed api you'd need to map both of these
> groups to different endpoints i.e networks.
>
>>
>>
>> Ryan Moats
>>
>>
>> Best,
>
> Aaron
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140806/21d6b7ce/attachment.html>