Hi all, I just want to make sure I understand the plan and its consequences. I’m on board with the YAGNI principle of hardwiring mechanism drivers to return their firewall_driver types for now.
However, after (A), (B), and (C) are completed, to allow for Open vSwitch-based security groups (blueprint ovs-firewall-driver) is it correct to say: we’ll need to implement a method such that the ML2 mechanism driver is aware of its agents and each of the agents' configured firewall_driver? i.e. additional RPC communication? >From yesterday’s meeting: ><http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_ml2/2014/networking_ml2.2014-01-15-16.00.log.html> 16:44:17 <rkukura> I've suggested that the L2 agent could get the vif_security info from its firewall_driver, and include this in its agents_db info 16:44:39 <rkukura> then the bound MD would return this as the vif_security for the port 16:45:47 <rkukura> existing agents_db RPC would send it from agent to server and store it in the agents_db table Does the above suggestion change with the plan as-is now? From Nachi’s response, it seemed like maybe we should support concurrent firewall_driver instances in a single agent. i.e. don’t statically configure firewall_driver in the agent, but let the MD choose the firewall_driver for the port based on what firewall_drivers the agent supports. Thanks, Amir On Jan 16, 2014, at 11:42 AM, Nachi Ueno <na...@ntti3.com> wrote: > Hi Mathieu, Bob > > Thank you for your reply > OK let's do (A) - (C) for now. > > (A) Remove firewall_driver from server side > Remove Noop <-- I'll write patch for this > > (B) update ML2 with extend_port_dict <-- Bob will push new review for this > > (C) Fix vif_security patch using (1) and (2). <-- I'll update the > patch after (A) and (B) merged > # config is hardwired for each mech drivers for now > > (Optional D) Rething firewall_driver config in the agent > > > > > > 2014/1/16 Robert Kukura <rkuk...@redhat.com>: >> On 01/16/2014 04:43 AM, Mathieu Rohon wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> your proposals make sense. Having the firewall driver configuring so >>> much things looks pretty stange. >> >> Agreed. I fully support proposed fix 1, adding enable_security_group >> config, at least for ml2. I'm not sure whether making this sort of >> change go the openvswitch or linuxbridge plugins at this stage is needed. >> >> >>> Enabling security group should be a plugin/MD decision, not a driver >>> decision. >> >> I'm not so sure I support proposed fix 2, removing firewall_driver >> configuration. I think with proposed fix 1, firewall_driver becomes an >> agent-only configuration variable, which seems fine to me, at least for >> now. The people working on ovs-firewall-driver need something like this >> to choose the between their new driver and the iptables driver. Each L2 >> agent could obviously revisit this later if needed. >> >>> >>> For ML2, in a first implementation, having vif security based on >>> vif_type looks good too. >> >> I'm not convinced to support proposed fix 3, basing ml2's vif_security >> on the value of vif_type. It seems to me that if vif_type was all that >> determines how nova handles security groups, there would be no need for >> either the old capabilities or new vif_security port attribute. >> >> I think each ML2 bound MechanismDriver should be able to supply whatever >> vif_security (or capabilities) value it needs. It should be free to >> determine that however it wants. It could be made configurable on the >> server-side as Mathieu suggest below, or could be kept configurable in >> the L2 agent and transmitted via agents_db RPC to the MechanismDriver in >> the server as I have previously suggested. >> >> As an initial step, until we really have multiple firewall drivers to >> choose from, I think we can just hardwire each agent-based >> MechanismDriver to return the correct vif_security value for its normal >> firewall driver, as we currently do for the capabilities attribute. >> >> Also note that I really like the extend_port_dict() MechanismDriver >> methods in Nachi's current patch set. This is a much nicer way for the >> bound MechanismDriver to return binding-specific attributes than what >> ml2 currently does for vif_type and capabilities. I'm working on a patch >> taking that part of Nachi's code, fixing a few things, and extending it >> to handle the vif_type attribute as well as the current capabilities >> attribute. I'm hoping to post at least a WIP version of this today. >> >> I do support hardwiring the other plugins to return specific >> vif_security values, but those values may need to depend on the value of >> enable_security_group from proposal 1. >> >> -Bob >> >>> Once OVSfirewallDriver will be available, the firewall drivers that >>> the operator wants to use should be in a MD config file/section and >>> ovs MD could bind one of the firewall driver during >>> port_create/update/get. >>> >>> Best, >>> Mathieu >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Nachi Ueno <na...@ntti3.com> wrote: >>>> Hi folks >>>> >>>> Security group for OVS agent (ovs plugin or ML2) is being broken. >>>> so we need vif_security port binding to fix this >>>> (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/21946/) >>>> >>>> We got discussed about the architecture for ML2 on ML2 weekly meetings, and >>>> I wanna continue discussion in here. >>>> >>>> Here is my proposal for how to fix it. >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ktF7NOFY_0cBAhfqE4XjxVG9yyl88RU_w9JcNiOukzI/edit#slide=id.p >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Nachi >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
