Open Stack

On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 8:59 AM Brent Eagles <beagles at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Designate has a requirement that appears to be a first for TripleO. It
> needs to deploy miniDNS instances on the internal network but each are
> accessible from the public network so external bind instances can sync
> with them. This is done by mapping port numbers on the VIP to each
> miniDNS instances [1] e.g.
>
>  10.0.0.5:16000        --> 172.16.2.184:5354
>  10.0.0.5:16001        --> 172.16.2.185:5354
>  10.0.0.5:16002        --> 172.16.2.186:5354
>       .
>       .
>       .
> <for each controller>
>
> The haproxy configuration is relatively straightforward [2].  There
> would be no problem if it the haproxy puppet managed the firewall rules,
> but for typical deployments we appear to disable this [3] and rely on
> the tripleo.firewall ansible module instead.
>
>
> The complicating factors are:
>
> a. the ports range depends on the number of miniDNS instances.
>
> b. the miniDNS deployment needs to set firewall rules wherever haproxy
> happens to live as they are not guaranteed to be on the same host.
> AFAICT, our ansible based firewall rule mechanism doesn't allow for
> setting firewall rules on hosts in addition to the ones that the service
> is being deployed on.
>
>
> Possible solutions I've been considering:
>
> a. Have haproxy puppet create firewall rules on the public API network
> and use tripleo.firewall for everything else. I think we generally don't
> distinguish which networks firewall rules are applicable to so this
> would be an "interesting", pervasive change. This is in PID 1's
> wheelhouse and I'd be interested in how they feel about this.
>
> This seems like the easiest path forward. That said, within the DF we're
actively attempting to reduce our dependence on puppet. As such, while the
other options may be ugly or even more complex, I think they're worth
pursuing especially if it means we have less puppet to maintain.



> b. Somehow create a jinja-ed firewall rule for haproxy that gets
> processed at deploy time so details could be filled in using cloud
> information. This seems like it would be kind of fragile, may not even
> be possible and depends on details of the framework I'm not familiar
> with.
>
> c. Extend tripleo.firewall or tripleo.iptables to process jinja'd rules
> - but that's problematic because it needs to be set on the haproxy host,
>   and miniDNS is elsewhere.
>
> d. Create some ansible that gets run in the haproxy hosts that
> generates the firewall rules based on cloud info. I feel this is a bit
> ugly.
>
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions on other solutions or thoughts on the
> above?
>
> We make heavy use of YAQL to organize our firewall rules for
tripleo.firewall, is there something we can do there? We could also
transition some of our firewall setup to use hostvars / facts across the
deployment and to pull back information for specific nodes, or all nodes
within a given group; maybe we can make better use of that within the
firewall role to pull back runtime information and compute the needed
firewall rules for minidns?



> Cheers,
>
> Brent
>
>
> 1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897319 The TripleO
> HAProxy instance needs to be configured for BIND->miniDNS AXFR
>
> 2. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/puppet-tripleo/+/828169
> Designate: create proxy ports on external VIP to access miniDNS workers.
>
> 3. https://bugs.launchpad.net/tripleo/+bug/1961799 haproxy template
> tasks to apply IPTables rules are no ops.
>
> --
> Brent Eagles
> Principal Software Engineer
> Red Hat Inc.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20220302/4d0a47ff/attachment.htm>