Open Stack

To clarify, the request is for a new TLS settings API with “default_tls_container_id” & “sni_list”.

If there is a new API, then we would have an object model reflecting this as a separate entity.

The tenant would do the following


1.       Create a listener with TERMINATED_HTTPS

2.       Set the TLS settings for the listener using /v2.0/listener/<listenerid>/tlssettings  (if at all we are having some default values this can be reflected here)

The only good thing is the separation of the TLS settings out of the listener API.
But, I can see 2 downsides

1.       The loadbalancer creation is a 2 step procedure

2.       We cannot enforce certificate attachment as part of the create of listener.

If the new API itself has “-1”s then I am perfectly OK with the current object model with default_tls_container_id in listener table.

Thanks,
Vijay V.


From: Evgeny Fedoruk [mailto:EvgenyF at Radware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:19 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for listener be set through separate API/model?

Vipsniassociations table: Line 147 in last patch of the document

From: Vijay Venkatachalam [mailto:Vijay.Venkatachalam at citrix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 10:17 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for listener be set through separate API/model?


>>SNI list is managed by separate entity
What is this entity?

From: Evgeny Fedoruk [mailto:EvgenyF at Radware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:25 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for listener be set through separate API/model?

+1 for option 1. SNI list is managed by separate entity, default TLS container is part of a listener object. It will have None value when listener does not offloads TLS.
Managing another entity for 1:0-1 relationship just for future use seems not right to me. Breaking TLS settings apart from listener can be done when needed, if needed.

Thanks,
Evg


From: Stephen Balukoff [mailto:sbalukoff at bluebox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 4:26 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for listener be set through separate API/model?

Ok, so we've got opinions on both sides of the argument here. I'm actually pretty ambivalent about it. Do others have strong opinions on this?

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Doug Wiegley <dougw at a10networks.com<mailto:dougw at a10networks.com>> wrote:
Put me down for being in favor of option 1.

A single attribute in a 1:1 relationship?  Putting that in a new table sounds like premature optimization to me; design the database change for the future feature when you can see the spec for it.

Thanks,
Doug


From: Stephen Balukoff <sbalukoff at bluebox.net<mailto:sbalukoff at bluebox.net>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Monday, June 23, 2014 at 5:25 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for listener be set through separate API/model?

Also to add to pros for 2:

* Keeping the TLS stuff contained to its own objects means we can have separate development resources on each and not worry as much about overlapping domains. (TLS-related knowledge and knowledge of dealing with TCP / UDP listeners are separate knowledge domains. Or at least, the former is a more specialized subset of the latter.)

Note that what we're proposing means there's essentially a 1:0-1 relationship between Listener and this new yet-to-be-named object. (0 in case the Listener is not terminating TLS.)

Stephen

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Brandon Logan <brandon.logan at rackspace.com<mailto:brandon.logan at rackspace.com>> wrote:
Whoops, [Neutron][LBaaS] got taken out of the subject line here.
Putting it back in.

On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 21:10 +0000, Brandon Logan wrote:
> Okay so we've talked a bit about this in IRC and now I'm sending this
> out as an update.  Here are the options with pros and cons that have
> come from that discussion.
>
> 1) default_certificate_id is an attribute of the Listener object.
>
> Pros:
> -No extra entity needed
>
> Cons:
> -May bloat Listener object when more attributes are needed for only TLS
> termination.  Sounds like TLS version and cipher selection will be
> needed attributes in the future.
>
>
> 2) A separate TLS Entity is created that is referenced by the Listener
> object.  This entity at first may only contain a certificate_id that
> references barbican.  Name and description can be allowed as well.
>
> Pros:
> -TLS domain specific attributes contained in its own entity
> -Future attributes would just be added to this entity and not bloat the
> Listener object.
>
> Cons:
> -It's another entity
>
> In IRC we (sbalukoff, myself) seemed to agree option 2 is right way to
> go.  Anyone agree or disagree?
>
> Thanks,
> Brandon
>
> On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 12:15 -0700, Stephen Balukoff wrote:
> > The separate entity makes sense for certificates participating in an
> > SNI configuration, but probably not so much for the 'default'
> > certificate used when TLS is being terminated.
> >
> >
> > Vijay: You're also right that other TLS-related attributes will
> > probably get added to the Listener object. This probably makes sense
> > if they apply to the Listener object as a whole. (This includes things
> > like TLS version and cipher selection.)
> >
> >
> > I don't see much of a point in creating a separate object to contain
> > these fields, since it would have a 1:1 relationship with the
> > Listener. It's true that for non-TLS-terminated Listeners, these
> > fields wouldn't be used, but isn't that already the case in many other
> > objects (not just in the Neutron LBaaS sub project)?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Stephen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Brandon Logan
> > <brandon.logan at rackspace.com<mailto:brandon.logan at rackspace.com>> wrote:
> >         Vijay,
> >         I think the separate entity is still going to happen.  I don't
> >         think it
> >         has remvoed.  Or that is may just be my assumption.
> >
> >         Thanks,
> >         Brandon
> >
> >         On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 15:59 +0000, Vijay Venkatachalam wrote:
> >         > Hi:
> >         >
> >         >
> >         > In the “LBaaS TLS termination capability specification”
> >         proposal
> >         >
> >         > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/98640/
> >         >
> >         > TLS settings like default certificate container id and SNI
> >         cert list are part of the listener properties.
> >         >
> >         > I think it is better to have this as a separate entity so
> >         that the listener properties are clean and is not “corrupted”
> >         with TLS settings.
> >         >
> >         > I liked the original SSL proposal better where TLS settings
> >         was a separate entity.
> >         >
> >         > It is just 2 properties now but in future the TLS settings
> >         would grow and if we are going to introduce a TLS
> >         profile/params/settings entity later, it is better to do it
> >         now (albeit with min properties).
> >         >
> >         > Thanks,
> >         > Vijay V.
> >
> >         > _______________________________________________
> >         > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >         > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto: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<mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> >         http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Balukoff
> > Blue Box Group, LLC
> > (800)613-4305 x807<tel:%28800%29613-4305%20x807>
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



--
Stephen Balukoff
Blue Box Group, LLC
(800)613-4305 x807<tel:%28800%29613-4305%20x807>

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



--
Stephen Balukoff
Blue Box Group, LLC
(800)613-4305 x807
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140624/857516e3/attachment.html>