Open Stack

Hello All,

The session talk was mainly about merging the Security Group API and the
FWaaS API to the same one or to keep them separate,
Which i don't think we reached agreement (or did we? :) )

I personally think (And few people approached us in the summit to express
that they feel the same) that we need to allow the user the full set of
features
to be able to configure both on the "perimeter" firewall and on the VM
port, we can make the UI easier to apply a set of the features (similar to
security groups for example)
on the VM ports but i feel merging the API's would make things easier in
the long run (and then you can apply it either on the VM port or the router
ports and of course
choose to apply only a simpler subset of the features)

There are many security use cases that are detected and handled better on
the Hypervisor / VM level which the current
security groups API doesn’t cover.

For the staying compatible with Amazon argument, i understand and think its
important point, but there are already differences between different cloud
providers (For example if you take Azure its "Security Group" features
include actions) and i don’t think we need to hold off features and
innovation because others aren’t doing it.

We have already suggested and implemented (in review) easy way to extend
new rule classes for security groups [1], [2]
And have implemented one use case for this [3], [4] (brute force
prevention) (which we done a nice
research/analytic to create templates for common protocols login
rates/retries and how to detected brute force probabilities -
can extend in private if anyone is interested but everything can be seen in
the code)

I also feel that auditing visibility is important for security groups and i
have a joint (with Roey Chen from VMware) API spec [5]
and reference implementation spec [6] to extend security groups auditing
capabilities

None the less, would love to help and contribute code in any effort around
this area and would like to see this move forward, i believe we have
an opportunity to give added value to the users with this.

Thanks
Gal.

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/169784/
[2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154535/
[3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/151247/
[4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/184243/
[5] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/180078/
[6] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/180419/

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:51 AM, Sridar Kandaswamy (skandasw) <
skandasw at cisco.com> wrote:

>  Hi All:
>
>  Thanks German for articulating this – we did have this discussion on
> last Fri as well on the need to have more user inputs. FWaaS has been in a
> bit of a Catch22 situation with the experimental state. Regarding feature
> velocity –  it has definitely been frustrating and we also lost
> contributors along the journey due to their frustration with moving things
> forward making things worse.
>
>  Kilo has been interesting in that there are more new contributors, repo
> split and more in terms of vendor support has gone in than ever before. We
> hope that this will improve traction for the customers they represent as
> well. Adding more user inputs and having a concerted conversation will
> definitely help. I echo Kyle and can certainly speak for all the current
> contributors in also helping out in any way possible to get this going. New
> Contributors are always welcome – Slawek & Vikram among the  most recent
> new contributors know this well.
>
>  Thanks
>
>  Sridar
>
>   From: Vikram Choudhary <vikschw at gmail.com>
> Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 5:54 PM
> To: OpenStack List <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [fwaas] - Collecting use cases for
> API improvements
>
>   Hi German,
>
>  Thanks for the initiative. I am currently working for few of the FWaaS
> BP's proposed for Liberty and definitely would like to be a part of this
> effort.
>
>  BTW did you mean FWaaS IRC meeting to take up this discussion further?
>
>  Thanks
> Vikram
>
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Kyle Mestery <mestery at mestery.com> wrote:
>
>>  On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Eichberger, German <
>> german.eichberger at hp.com> wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>>
>>> During the FWaaS session in Vancouver [1] it became apparent that both
>>> the FWaaS API and the Security Groups API are lacking in functionality and
>>> the connection between the two is not well defined.
>>>
>>>
>>> For instance if a cloud user opens up all ports in the security groups
>>> they still can’t connect and might figure out days later that there is a
>>> second API (FWaaS) which prevents him from connecting to his service. This
>>> will probably make for a frustrating experience.
>>>
>>>
>>> Similarly, the operators I spoke to all said that the current FWaaS
>>> implementation isn’t going far enough and needs a lot of missing
>>> functionality added to fulfill their requirements on a Firewall
>>> implementation.
>>>
>>>
>>> With that backdrop I am proposing to take a step back and assemble a
>>> group of operators and users to collect use cases for the firewall service
>>> – both FWaaS and Security Groups based. I believe it is important at this
>>> juncture to really focus on the users and less on technical limitations. I
>>> also think this reset is necessary to make a service which meets the needs
>>> of operators and users better.
>>>
>>>
>>> Once we have collected the use cases we can evaluate our current API’s
>>> and functionality and start making the necessary improvements to turn FWaaS
>>> into a service which covers most of the use cases and requirements.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please join me in this effort. We have set up an etherpad [2] to start
>>> collecting the use cases and will discuss them in an upcoming meeting.
>>>
>>>
>>  Thanks for sending this out German. I took home the same impressions
>> that you did. Similar to what we did with the LBaaS project (to great
>> success last summer), I think we should look at FWaaS API V2 with the new
>> contributors coming on as equals and helping to define the new operator
>> focused API. My suggestion is we look at doing the work to lay the
>> foundation during Liberty for a successful launch of this API during the
>> Mxx cycle. I'm happy to step in here and guide the new group of
>> contributors similar to what we did for LBaaS.
>>
>>  Thanks,
>>  Kyle
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> German
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-neutron-sg-fwaas-future-direction
>>>
>>> [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/fwaas_use_cases
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> 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
>> 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://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>


-- 
Best Regards ,

The G.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150528/2653e6ef/attachment.html>