incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <kdam...@apache.org>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Security Groups Isolation in Advanced Zone
Date Thu, 17 Jan 2013 01:16:40 GMT
Got it, 

So we are still only talking about SG on advanced shared networks.

Thanks.


-kd


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anthony Xu [mailto:Xuefei.Xu@citrix.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:11 PM
>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Security Groups Isolation in Advanced Zone
>
>In this spec, security group is only supported in shared guest network, we
>might add isolated guest network support later. I have a concern about
this,
>normally there is firewall for isolated network, if security group is added
to
>isolated network, that means if user wants to allow some kind ingress
traffic ,
>he might need to program both security group and firewall, it might be
>inconvenient for user.
>
>As for ACL, are you referring to ACL in VPC? in this spec, VPC is not
supported
>due to the similar reason of isolated guest network, user might need to
>handle ACL and security group at the same time.
>
>
>Anthony
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kelcey Damage (BT) [mailto:kelcey@backbonetechnology.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:55 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Security Groups Isolation in Advanced Zone
>>
>> So to catch myself up, this will allow functional security group
>> isolation/ACLs on both 'shared' and 'isolated' networks?
>>
>> -kd
>>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]
>> >Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:36 PM
>> >To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Security Groups Isolation in Advanced Zone
>> >
>> >Folks please pass on comments if any, otherwise it is assumed that
>> >the
>> spec
>> is
>> >approved by the community
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Anthony Xu [mailto:Xuefei.Xu@citrix.com]
>> >> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 3:53 PM
>> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Security Groups Isolation in Advanced Zone
>> >>
>> >>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Isolation+based
>> >> +on+
>> >> Security+Groups+in+Advance+zone
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This is upgraded spec ,
>> >> Compared to original one, following are major changes
>> >>
>> >> 1.  SG enabled is zone wide parameter, if this zone is SG enabled,
>> all
>> >> guest networks in this zone must be SG enabled.
>> >> 2.  support all shared network types, includes zone-wide shared
>> >> network, domain-wide shared networks and account-specific share
>> >> networks 3.  support multiple SG enabled networks in one SG enabled
>> zone.
>> >> 4.  VM can be on multiple SG enabled networks 5.  SG rules apply to
>> >> all NICs for a VM 6.  support both KVM and XenServer.
>> >>
>> >> Comments, question, suggestion and flame are welcome!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Anthony
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: Dave Cahill [mailto:dcahill@midokura.jp]
>> >> > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 5:29 PM
>> >> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Security Groups Isolation in Advanced Zone
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi Anthony,
>> >> >
>> >> > Understood - thanks for the update.
>> >> >
>> >> > Dave.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Anthony Xu
>> >> > <Xuefei.Xu@citrix.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Hi Dave,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > For 4.1 , this feature is only for shared network on advanced
>> >> > > zone,
>> >> > both
>> >> > > XenServer and KVM are supported.
>> >> > > Will upgrade FS soon.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Anthony
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > > > From: Dave Cahill [mailto:dcahill@midokura.jp]
>> >> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:33 AM
>> >> > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Security Groups Isolation in Advanced
>> >> > > > Zone
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Hi Manan,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I'm interested in this feature - when (roughly) are you
>> planning
>> >> > > > to commit this to master?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Are you planning the full list of features from your
>> >> > > > requirements
>> >> > doc
>> >> > > > (including support for Adavnced, Isolated networks) in 4.1?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Thanks in advance,
>> >> > > > Dave.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Manan Shah
>> >> > > > <manan.shah@citrix.com>
>> >> > > > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > Yes, FS definitely needs updating. Please also look
at the
>> >> > "Future"
>> >> > > > > section of Alena's FS.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Regards,
>> >> > > > > Manan Shah
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > On 1/4/13 1:57 PM, "Prasanna Santhanam"
>> >> > > > <prasanna.santhanam@citrix.com>
>> >> > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > >On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 12:16:44AM +0530, Manan
Shah wrote:
>> >> > > > > >> Hi Chip,
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> As Alena had mentioned in her FS, her focus
was to
>> >> > > > > >> initially
>> >> > > > support
>> >> > > > > >>only
>> >> > > > > >> the functionality that was enabled in CS 2.2.
She had
>> >> > > > > >>created
>> >> > a
>> >> > > > section
>> >> > > > > >>in
>> >> > > > > >> her FS that talked about Future release plans.
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> My requirements page covers requirements for
both, the
>> >> > > > > >> CS
>> >> > > > > >> 2.2
>> >> > use
>> >> > > > case
>> >> > > > > >>as
>> >> > > > > >> well as the broader use case.
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> Let me know if you have additional questions.
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >Thanks - Alena's FS lists only support for KVM while
you
>> have
>> >> > listed
>> >> > > > > >support for XenServer and KVM. Guess the FS needs
updating?
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >--
>> >> > > > > >Prasanna.,
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > --
>> >> > > > Thanks,
>> >> > > > Dave.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Dave.



Mime
View raw message