Open Stack

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/159840/1/doc/source/testing/openflow-firewall.rst  

I may need some help from the OVS experts to answer the questions from  
henry.hly.

Ben, Thomas, could you please? (let me know if you are not registered to
the openstack review system, I could answer in your name).


Best,
Miguel Ángel Ajo


On Friday, 27 de February de 2015 at 14:50, Miguel Ángel Ajo wrote:

> Ok, I moved the document here [1], and I will eventually submit another patch
> with the testing scripts when those are ready.
>  
> Let’s move the discussion to the review!,
>  
>  
> Best,
> Miguel Ángel Ajo
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/159840/
>  
>  
> On Friday, 27 de February de 2015 at 7:03, Kevin Benton wrote:
>  
> > Sounds promising. We'll have to evaluate it for feature parity when the time comes.
> >  
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Ben Pfaff <blp at nicira.com (mailto:blp at nicira.com)> wrote:
> > > This sounds quite similar to the planned support in OVN to "gateway" a
> > > logical network to a particular VLAN on a physical port, so perhaps it
> > > will be sufficient.
> > >  
> > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 05:58:40PM -0800, Kevin Benton wrote:
> > > > If a port is bound with a VLAN segmentation type, it will get a VLAN id and
> > > > a name of a physical network that it corresponds to. In the current plugin,
> > > > each agent is configured with a mapping between physical networks and OVS
> > > > bridges. The agent takes the bound port information and sets up rules to
> > > > forward traffic from the VM port to the OVS bridge corresponding to the
> > > > physical network. The bridge usually then has a physical interface added to
> > > > it for the tagged traffic to use to reach the rest of the network.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Ben Pfaff <blp at nicira.com (mailto:blp at nicira.com)> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What kind of VLAN support would you need?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 02:05:41PM -0800, Kevin Benton wrote:
> > > > > > If OVN chooses not to support VLANs, we will still need the current OVS
> > > > > > reference anyway so it definitely won't be wasted work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <
> > > > > > majopela at redhat.com (mailto:majopela at redhat.com)> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sharing thoughts that I was having:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > May be during the next summit it???s worth discussing the future of the
> > > > > > > reference agent(s), I feel we???ll be replicating a lot of work across
> > > > > > > OVN/OVS/RYU(ofagent) and may be other plugins,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I guess until OVN and it???s integration are ready we can???t stop, so
> > > > > it makes
> > > > > > > sense to keep development at our side, also having an independent
> > > > > plugin
> > > > > > > can help us iterate faster for new features, yet I expect that OVN
> > > > > will be
> > > > > > > more fluent at working with OVS and OpenFlow, as their designers have
> > > > > > > a very deep knowledge of OVS under the hood, and it???s C. ;)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 26/2/2015, at 7:57, Miguel ??ngel Ajo <majopela at redhat.com (mailto:majopela at redhat.com)> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thursday, 26 de February de 2015 at 7:48, Miguel ??ngel Ajo wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  Inline comments follow after this, but I wanted to respond to Brian
> > > > > > > questionwhich has been cut out:
> > > > > > > We???re talking here of doing a preliminary analysis of the networking
> > > > > > > performance,before writing any real code at neutron level.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If that looks right, then we should go into a preliminary (and
> > > > > orthogonal
> > > > > > > to iptables/LB)implementation. At that moment we will be able to
> > > > > examine
> > > > > > > the scalability of the solutionin regards of switching openflow rules,
> > > > > > > which is going to be severely affectedby the way we use to handle OF
> > > > > rules
> > > > > > > in the bridge:
> > > > > > >    * via OpenFlow, making the agent a ???real" OF controller, with the
> > > > > > > current effort to use      the ryu framework plugin to do that.   * via
> > > > > > > cmdline (would be alleviated with the current rootwrap work, but the
> > > > > former
> > > > > > > one     would be preferred).
> > > > > > > Also, ipset groups can be moved into conjunctive groups in OF (thanks
> > > > > Ben
> > > > > > > Pfaff for theexplanation, if you???re reading this ;-))
> > > > > > > Best,Miguel ??ngel
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, 25 de February de 2015 at 20:34, Tapio Tallgren wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The RFC2544 with near zero packet loss is a pretty standard performance
> > > > > > > benchmark. It is also used in the OPNFV project (
> > > > > > >
> > > > > https://wiki.opnfv.org/characterize_vswitch_performance_for_telco_nfv_use_cases
> > > > > > > ).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does this mean that OpenStack will have stateful firewalls (or security
> > > > > > > groups)? Any other ideas planned, like ebtables type filtering?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What I am proposing is in the terms of maintaining the statefulness we
> > > > > > > have nowregards security groups (RELATED/ESTABLISHED connections are
> > > > > > > allowed back on open ports) while adding a new firewall driver working
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > with OVS+OF (no iptables or linux bridge).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That will be possible (without auto-populating OF rules in oposite
> > > > > > > directions) due to
> > > > > > > the new connection tracker functionality to be eventually merged into
> > > > > ovs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Tapio
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Rick Jones <rick.jones2 at hp.com (mailto:rick.jones2 at hp.com)>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 02/25/2015 05:52 AM, Miguel ??ngel Ajo wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I???m writing a plan/script to benchmark OVS+OF(CT) vs
> > > > > > > OVS+LB+iptables+ipsets,
> > > > > > > so we can make sure there???s a real difference before jumping into any
> > > > > > > OpenFlow security group filters when we have connection tracking in
> > > > > OVS.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The plan is to keep all of it in a single multicore host, and make
> > > > > > > all the measures within it, to make sure we just measure the
> > > > > > > difference due to the software layers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Suggestions or ideas on what to measure are welcome, there???s an
> > > > > initial
> > > > > > > draft here:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://github.com/mangelajo/ovs-experiments/tree/master/ovs-ct
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Conditions to be benchmarked
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >     Initial connection establishment time
> > > > > > >     Max throughput on the same CPU
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Large MTUs and stateless offloads can mask a multitude of path-length
> > > > > > > sins.  And there is a great deal more to performance than Mbit/s. While
> > > > > > > some of that may be covered by the first item via the likes of say
> > > > > netperf
> > > > > > > TCP_CRR or TCP_CC testing, I would suggest that in addition to a focus
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > Mbit/s (which I assume is the focus of the second item) there is
> > > > > something
> > > > > > > for packet per second performance.  Something like netperf TCP_RR and
> > > > > > > perhaps aggregate TCP_RR or UDP_RR testing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doesn't have to be netperf, that is simply the hammer I wield :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What follows may be a bit of perfect being the enemy of the good, or
> > > > > > > mission creep...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On the same CPU would certainly simplify things, but it will almost
> > > > > > > certainly exhibit different processor data cache behaviour than
> > > > > actually
> > > > > > > going through a physical network with a multi-core system.  Physical
> > > > > NICs
> > > > > > > will possibly (probably?) have RSS going, which may cause cache lines
> > > > > to be
> > > > > > > pulled around.  The way packets will be buffered will differ as well.
> > > > > Etc
> > > > > > > etc.  How well the different solutions scale with cores is definitely a
> > > > > > > difference of interest between the two sofware layers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi rick, thanks for your feedback here, I???ll take it into
> > > > > consideration,
> > > > > > > specially about the small packet pps measurements, and
> > > > > > > really using physical hosts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Although I may start with an AIO setup for simplicity, we should
> > > > > > > get more conclusive results from at least two hosts and decent NICs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I will put all this together in the document, and loop you in for
> > > > > review.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > rick
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe (http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe)
> > > > > > > <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > -Tapio
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe (http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe)
> > > > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe (http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe)
> > > > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe (http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe)
> > > > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Miguel Angel Ajo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe (http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe)
> > > > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Kevin Benton
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe (http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe)
> > > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________________________________________________
> > > > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > > > > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe (http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe)
> > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Kevin Benton
> > >  
> > > > __________________________________________________________________________
> > > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > > > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe (http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe)
> > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > >  
> > >  
> > > __________________________________________________________________________
> > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe (http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe)
> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > --  
> > Kevin Benton  
> > __________________________________________________________________________
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe (mailto:OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe)
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >  
> >  
> >  
>  
>  
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe (mailto:OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe)
> 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/20150303/00b0a494/attachment.html>