[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5278?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13844111#comment-13844111
]
ASF subversion and git services commented on CLOUDSTACK-5278:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Commit 3caef2b1d50bc44c89811bf61b97cbb2d824d1e6 in branch refs/heads/4.3 from
[~jayapal]
[ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;h=3caef2b ]
CLOUDSTACK-5278 Fixed cleaning up egress default rules on VR and SRX
1. Egress default policy rules is send to the firewall provider. It is up to
the
provider to configure the rules.
2. The default policy rules are send for both allow and deny default policy.
3. On network shutdown rules for delete are send.
4. For VR and SRX, by default deny the traffic. So no default rule to deny
traffic is required.
> Egress Firewall rules clarifications
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: CLOUDSTACK-5278
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5278
> Project: CloudStack
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: Public(Anyone can view this level - this is the
> default.)
> Affects Versions: 4.3.0
> Reporter: Will Stevens
> Assignee: Jayapal Reddy
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 4.3.0
>
> Attachments: diff.txt, diff.txt
>
>
> These issues may also exist in the 4.2 branch, but I am currently
> testing/working on the 4.3 branch.
> I believe these bugs were introduced with the change to the Network Service
> Offering to add the 'Default egress policy' dropdown.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1578
> I am trying to resolve the bugs this change introduced in the Palo Alto
> plugin.
> There are two types of Egress rules (from what I can tell).
> - FirewallRule.FirewallRuleType.System : this appears to be set up by the
> system on network creation to correspond to the global network default
> allow/deny egress rule.
> - FirewallRule.FirewallRuleType.User : any rule that a user creates through
> the UI will get this type.
> There are bugs associated with both of the options in the dropdown (allow and
> deny).
> Case: 'deny'
> - When the network is setup, it does not try to create the global deny rule
> for the network, but it appears to register that it exists. Instead, when
> the first egress rule is created by a user, the system sees both the 'system'
> and 'user' rules, so it will create both rules then.
> Case: both 'allow' and 'deny'
> - The clean up of the network global 'system' egress rules are never done.
> So when a network is deleted, it will leave an orphaned egress rule
> associated with the previous network's cidr. This is bound to cause many
> issues.
> - Even worse, it appears that the ID for the network global 'system' egress
> rule is hardcoded to '0'. Every time I try to spin up a new network it will
> attempt to create a rule with a '0' ID, but since one already exists with
> that ID, there is a config collision. In my case (Palo Alto), the second
> rule with the same ID gets ignored because it checks to see if the rule
> exists and it gets a 'yes' back because the previous network has an egress
> rule with that ID already.
> Let me know if you have additional questions...
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.4#6159)
