Open Stack

Hi Sam,

So, If I understand you correctly, you don't think that specifying routing
rules (eg. static routing configuration) should be beyond the scope of
LBaaS?

I agree that it might be possible to reach a given member over different
routes. The example that comes to mind for me is a member with a public IP
on the internet somewhere that's either accessible from the VIP address via
the VIP's subnet's default gateway, or via a VPN service available on the
same layer 2 network. But if we're going to support choosing routes to a
given member, shouldn't this information be located with the member?

I don't know why putting this information as properties of the VIP in the
object model would make scheduling and placing the configuration any
easier--  specifically, if you've got enough information / completed
objects to deploy a load balancing service, wouldn't the service's pools
and pool member information also be implicitly available as part of the
overall configuration for the service?

Thanks,
Stephen


On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Samuel Bercovici <SamuelB at radware.com>wrote:

>  Hi,
>
>
>
> I prefer a different approach (AKA, I oppose J)
>
> I think that this information should be properties of the VIP and not the
> pool.
>
> So VIP should have:
>
> 1.       VIP subnet (this is where the IP will be allocated)
>
> 2.       List of members subnets (it could be optional. This means that
> members have L2 proximity on the VIP subnet)
>
> 3.       List of static routes (to be able to specify how to reach
> members which are not on L2 proximity) – if not presented, this could be
> calculated by the “driver” backend but sometimes where you can use multiple
> different paths a user intervention might be required.
>
>
>
> I prefer this approach for the following:
>
> 1.       Concentrating the L3 information in a single place (VIP) – this
> also makes scheduling and placement of the configuration easier.
>
> 2.       When using multiple pools (L7 content switching) that have
> members on the same subnet, no need to repeat the subnet information
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>                 -Sam.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Harwell [mailto:adam.harwell at RACKSPACE.COM]
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 03, 2014 10:17 AM
>
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Use-Cases with VPNs
> Distinction
>
>
>
> Sounds about right to me. I guess I agree with your agreement. :)
>
> Does anyone actually *oppose* this arrangement?
>
>
>
> --Adam
>
>
>
> *From: *Stephen Balukoff <sbalukoff at bluebox.net>
> *Reply-To: *"OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
> questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> *Date: *Friday, May 2, 2014 7:53 PM
> *To: *"OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Use-Cases with VPNs
> Distinction
>
>
>
> Hi guys,
>
>
>
> Yep, so what I'm hearing is that we should be able to assume that either
> all members in a single pool are adjacent (ie. layer-2 connected), or are
> routable from that subnet.
>
>
>
> Adam-- I could see it going either way with regard to how to communicate
> with members:  If the particular device that the provider uses lives
> outside tenant private networks, the driver for said devices would need to
> make sure that VIFs (or some logical equivalent) are added such that the
> devices can talk to the members. This is also the case for virtual load
> balancers (or other devices) which are assigned to the tenant but live on
> an "external" network. (In this topology, VIP subnet and pool subnet could
> differ, and the driver needs to make sure that the load balancer has a
> virtual interface/neutron port + IP address on the pool subnet.)
>
>
>
> There's also the option that if the "device" being used for load balancing
> exists as a virtual appliance that can be deployed on an internal network,
> one can make it publicly accessible by adding a "neutron floating IP" (ie.
> static NAT rule) that forwards any traffic destined for a public "external"
> IP to the load balancer's internal IP address.  (In this topology, VIP
> subnet and pool subnet would be the same thing.) The nifty thing about this
> topology is that load balancers that don't have this static NAT rule added
> are implicitly "private" to the tenant internal subnet.
>
>
>
> Having seen what our customers do with their topologies, my gut reaction
> is to say that the 99.9% use case is that all the members of a pool will be
> in the same subnet, or routable from the pool subnet. And I agree that if
> someone has a really strange topology in use that doesn't work with this
> assumption, it's not the job of LBaaS to try and solve this for them.
>
>
>
> Anyway, I'm hearing general agreement that subnet_id should be an
> attribute of the pool.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Eugene Nikanorov <enikanorov at mirantis.com>
> wrote:
>
> Agree with Sam here,
>
> Moreover, i think it makes sense to leave subnet an attribute of the pool.
>
> Which would mean that members reside in that subnet or are available
> (routable) from this subnet, and LB should have a port on this subnet.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eugene.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Samuel Bercovici <SamuelB at radware.com>
> wrote:
>
> I think that associating a VIP subnet and list of member subnets is a good
> choice.
>
> This is declaratively saying to where is the configuration expecting layer
> 2 proximity.
>
> The minimal would be the VIP subnet which in essence means the VIP and
> members are expected on the same subnet.
>
>
>
> Any member outside the specified subnets is supposedly accessible via
> routing.
>
>
>
> It might be an option to state the static route to use to access such
> member(s).
>
> On many cases the needed static routes could also be computed
> automatically.
>
> Regards,
>
>                -Sam.
>
>
> On 2 במאי 2014, at 03:50, "Stephen Balukoff" <sbalukoff at bluebox.net>
> wrote:
>
>  Hi Trevor,
>
>
>
> I was the one who wrote that use case based on discussion that came out of
> the question I wrote the list last week about SSL re-encryption:  Someone
> had stated that sometimes pool members are local, and sometimes they are
> hosts across the internet, accessible either through the usual default
> route, or via a VPN tunnel.
>
>
>
> The point of this use case is to make the distinction that if we associate
> a neutron_subnet with the pool (rather than with the member), then some
> members of the pool that don't exist in that neutron_subnet might not be
> accessible from that neutron_subnet.  However, if the behavior of the
> system is such that attempting to reach a host through the subnet's
> "default route" still works (whether that leads to communication over a VPN
> or the usual internet routes), then this might not be a problem.
>
>
>
> The other option is to associate the neutron_subnet with a pool member.
> But in this case there might be problems too. Namely:
>
>    - The device or software that does the load balancing may need to have
>    an interface on each of the member subnets, and presumably an IP address
>    from which to originate requests.
>    - How does one resolve cases where subnets have overlapping IP ranges?
>
>  In the end, it may be simpler not to associate neutron_subnet with a
> pool at all. Maybe it only makes sense to do this for a VIP, and then the
> assumption would be that any member addresses one adds to pools must be
> accessible from the VIP subnet.  (Which is easy, if the VIP exists on the
> same neutron_subnet. But this might require special routing within Neutron
> itself if it doesn't.)
>
>
>
> This topology question (ie. what is feasible, what do people actually want
> to do, and what is supported by the model) is one of the more difficult
> ones to answer, especially given that users of OpenStack that I've come in
> contact with barely understand the Neutron networking model, if at all.
>
>
>
> In our case, we don't actually have any users in the scenario of having
> members spread across different subnets that might not be be routable, so
> the use case is somewhat contrived, but I thought it was worth mentioning
> based on what people were saying in the SSL re-encryption discussion last
> week.
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Trevor Vardeman <
> trevor.vardeman at rackspace.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> After going back through the use-cases to double check some of my
> understanding, I realized I didn't quite understand the ones I had
> already answered.  I'll use a specific use-case as an example of my
> misunderstanding here, and hopefully the clarification can be easily
> adapted to the rest of the use-cases that are similar.
>
> Use Case 13:  A project-user has an HTTPS application in which some of
> the back-end servers serving this application are in the same subnet,
> and others are across the internet, accessible via VPN. He wants this
> HTTPS application to be available to web clients via a single IP
> address.
>
> In this use-case, is the Load Balancer going to act as a node in the
> VPN?  What I mean here, is the Load Balancer supposed to establish a
> connection to this VPN for the client, and simulate itself as a computer
> on the VPN?  If this is not the case, wouldn't the VPN have a subnet ID,
> and simply be added to a pool during its creation?  If the latter is
> accurate, would this not just be a basic HTTPS Load Balancer creation?
> After looking through the VPNaaS API, you would provide a subnet ID to
> the create VPN service request, and it establishes a VPN on said subnet.
> Couldn't this be provided to the Load Balancer pool as its subnet?
>
> Forgive me for requiring so much distinction here, but what may be clear
> to the creator of this use-case, it has left me confused.  This same
> type of clarity would be very helpful across many of the other
> VPN-related use-cases.  Thanks again!
>
> -Trevor
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> 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
>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Stephen Balukoff
> Blue Box Group, LLC
> (800)613-4305 x807
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> 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/20140505/005ecb6d/attachment.html>