On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Ivar Lazzaro <ivarlazz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > The user still needs to create an endpointgroup. What is being done implicitly here? I fail to see the difference. > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
