Hi Aaron, Please note that the user using the current reference implementation doesn't need to create Networks, Ports, or anything else. As a matter of fact, the mapping is done implicitly.
Also, I agree with Kevin when he says that this is a whole different discussion. Thanks, Ivar. On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Aaron Rosen <aaronoro...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Ryan, > > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Ryan Moats <rmo...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > >> Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote on 08/06/2014 01:04:41 PM: >> >> [snip] >> >> >> > AFAICT, there is nothing that can be done with the GBP API that cannot >> > be done with the low-level regular Neutron API. >> >> I'll take you up on that, Jay :) >> >> How exactly do I specify behavior between two collections of ports >> residing in the same IP subnet (an example of this is a bump-in-the-wire >> network appliance). >> >> Would you mind explaining what behavior you want between the two > collection of ports? > > >> I've looked around regular Neutron and all I've come up with so far is: >> (1) use security groups on the ports >> (2) set allow_overlapping_ips to true, set up two networks with >> identical CIDR block subnets and disjoint allocation pools and put a >> vRouter between them. >> >> Now #1 only works for basic allow/deny access and adds the complexity of >> needing to specify per-IP address security rules, which means you need the >> ports to have IP addresses already and then manually add them into the >> security groups, which doesn't seem particularly very orchestration >> friendly. >> > > I believe the referential security group rules solve this problem (unless > I'm not understanding): > > neutron security-group-create group1 > neutron security-group-create group2 > > # allow members of group1 to ssh into group2 (but not the other way > around): > neutron security-group-rule-create --direction ingress --port-range-min 22 > --port-range-max 22 --protocol TCP --remote-group-id group1 group2 > > # allow members of group2 to be able to access TCP 80 from members of > group1 (but not the other way around): > neutron security-group-rule-create --direction ingress --port-range-min 80 > --port-range-max 80 --protocol TCP --remote-group-id group2 group1 > > # Now when you create ports just place these in the desired security > groups and neutron will automatically handle this orchestration for you > (and you don't have to deal with ip_addresses and updates). > > neutron port-create --security-groups group1 network1 > neutron port-create --security-groups group2 network1 > > >> >> Now #2 handles both allow/deny access as well as provides a potential >> attachment point for other behaviors, *but* you have to know to set up the >> disjoint allocation pools, and your depending on your drivers to handle the >> case of a router that isn't really a router (i.e. it's got two interfaces >> in the same subnet, possibly with the same address (unless you thought of >> that when you set things up)). >> >> > Are you talking about the firewall as a service stuff here? > > >> You can say that both of these are *possible*, but they both look more >> complex to me than just having two groups of ports and specifying a policy >> between them. >> > > Would you mind proposing how this is done in the Group policy api? From > what I can tell in the new proposed api you'd need to map both of these > groups to different endpoints i.e networks. > >> >> >> Ryan Moats >> >> >> Best, > > Aaron > >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
