Open Stack

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Ivar Lazzaro <ivarlazzaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>


The user still needs to create an endpointgroup. What is being done
implicitly here? I fail to see the difference.


>
> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d1199451/attachment.html>