Hi Stephen. Thank you for reviewing this! See my comments bellow.
-Sam. From: Stephen Balukoff [mailto:sbaluk...@bluebox.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:58 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Proposal for model change - Layer 7 support Hi Samuel! Per your request, here's some feedback on the layer 7 proposal referenced below. Please let me know if by "comment is something missing there" you meant I should actually comment within the blueprint or wiki system instead of in this e-mail thread. * Are L7Policy, L7Rule, and L7VipPolicyAssociation all new resources within the data model, or are any of these simply going to be implemented as additional fields to existing objects? (I'll try to produce a new diagram for y'all illustrating how these fit in with the existing data model, unless one of you has this already.) <Sam> Those are new resources within the data model. Please review the Wiki and the code for further details. * I see the intent is to support L7 rules of the following types: "Hostname, Path, File Type, Header, Cookie" Has there been discussion around supporting other types of L7 rules? (I ask mostly out of curiosity-- the list there actually covers the 90% use case for our customers just fine.) <Sam> We have reviewed this based on capabilities that we belive could be supported by HA proxy and all commercial vendors. <Sam> What is missing? * Since the L7Rule object contains a position indicator, I assume, therefore, that a given L7Rule object cannot exist in more than one L7Policy, correct? Also, I assume that the first L7Rule added to an L7Policy becomes the rule at position 0 and that subsequent rules are added with incrementing positions. This is unless the position is specified, in which case, the rule is inserted into the policy list at the position specified, and all subsequent rule position indicators get incremented. Correct? <Sam> Correct. * Shouldn't the L7Rule object also have a l7PolicyID attribute? <Sam> It does. * It is unclear from the proposal whether a given VIP can have multiple L7VipPolicyAssociation objects associated with it. If not, then we've not really solved the problem of multiple back-end pools per VIP. If so, then the L7VipPolicyAssociation object is missing its own 'position' attribute (because order matters here, too!). <Sam> Correct the L7VIPPollicyassociation should have a “position” attribute. The way to implement is under consideration. * I assume any given pool can have multiple L7VipPolicyAssociations. If this is not the case, then a given single pool can only be associated with one VIP. <Sam> nope this any to any. Pools can be associated with multiple VIPs * There is currently no way to set a 'default' back-end pool in this proposal. Perhaps this could be solved by: * Make 'DEFAULT' one of the actions possible for a L7VipPolicyAssociation * Any L7VipPolicyAssociation with an action of 'DEFAULT' would have a null position and null L7PolicyId. * We would need to enforce having only one L7VipPolicyAssociation object with a 'DEFAULT' action per VIP. <Sam> the “default” behavior is governed by the current VIP --> Pool relationship. This is the canonical approach that could also be addressed by LBaaS drivers that do not support L7 content switching. <Sam> We will fix the VIP<---->Pool limitation (for Juno) by removing the Pool-->VIP reference al only leaving the VIP --> Pool reference thus allowing the Pool to be used by multiple VIPs. This was originally planned for icehouse but will be handle for Juno. Other than the last three points above, the L7Policy, L7Rule, and L7VipPolicyAssociation do essentially the same thing as the 'ACL' object in my proposal, albeit with more granularity in the objects themselves. (In our BLBv2 implementation, we have pretty loose rules around what can be specified in a given ACL, and allow haproxy to do syntax checking itself on the whole generated configuration file, returning an error and refusing to update a listener's in-production configuration until the error is resolved in the case where the user made an error on any given ACL.) I like that in this proposal, the model seems to enforce compliance with certain rule formats, which, presumably, could be syntax checked against what haproxy will allow without having to call haproxy directly. The down-side of the above is that we start to enforce, at the model level, very haproxy-specific configuration terminology with this. This is fine, so long as load balancer vendors that want to write drivers for Neutron LBaaS are capable of translating haproxy-specific ACL language into whatever rules make sense for their appliance. <Sam> It is not HA proxy specific as all commercial implementation can support this. Having said the above, I don't see a way to expose a lot of L7 functionality and still be able to do syntax checking without choosing one particular configuration format in which rules can be specified (in our case, haproxy). I suppose we could invent our own pseudo rule language-- but why bother when haproxy has already done this, eh? I'll take a look at the SSL stuff next, then the LoadBalancerInstance stuff... Thanks, Stephen On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Samuel Bercovici <samu...@radware.com<mailto:samu...@radware.com>> wrote: Please review the current work in progress and comment is something is missing there. The logical load balancer API which is already addressed: • Multiple pools per VIP (ie. “layer 7” support) - https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/lbaas-l7-rules. -- Stephen Balukoff Blue Box Group, LLC (800)613-4305 x807
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
