On Apr 15, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin....@pnnl.gov> wrote:
So, an Aggregator would basically be a stripped down keystone that basically
provided a dynamic service catalog that points to the registered other regions?
You could then point a horizon, cli, or rest api at the aggregator service?
I guess if it was an identity provider too, it can potentially talk to the
remote keystone and generate project scoped tokens, though you'd need
project+region scoped tokens, which I'm not sure exists today?
Thanks,
Kevin
________________________________________
From: Geoff Arnold [ge...@geoffarnold.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:05 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: [openstack-dev] [all] Introducing the Cloud Service Federation project
(cross-project design summit proposal)
tl;dr We want to implement a new system which we’re calling an Aggregator which
is based on Horizon and Keystone, and that can provide access to virtual
Regions from multiple independent OpenStack providers. We plan on developing
this system as a project in Stackforge, but we need help right now in
identifying any unexpected dependencies.
For the last 6-7 years, there has been great interest in the potential for
various business models involving multiple clouds and/or cloud providers. These
business models include but are not limited to, federation, reseller, broker,
cloud-bursting, hybrid and intercloud. The core concept of this initiative is
to go beyond the simple dyadic relationship between a cloud service provider
and a cloud service consumer to a more sophisticated “supply chain” of cloud
services, dynamically configured, and operated by different business entities.
This is an ambitious goal, but there is a general sense that OpenStack is
becoming stable and mature enough to support such an undertaking.
Until now, OpenStack has focused on the logical abstraction of a Region as the
basis for cloud service consumption. A user interacts with Horizon and Keystone
instances for a Region, and through them gains access to the services and
resources within the specified Region. A recent extension of this model has
been to share Horizon and Keystone instances between several Regions. This
simplifies the user experience and enables single sign on to a “single pane of
glass”. However, in this configuration all of the services, shared or
otherwise, are still administered by a single entity, and the configuration of
the whole system is essentially static and centralized.
We’re proposing that the first step in realizing the Cloud Service Federation
use cases is to enable the administrative separation of interface and region:
to create a new system which provides the same user interface as today -
Horizon, Keystone - but which is administratively separate from the Region(s)
which provide the actual IaaS resources. We don’t yet have a good name for this
system; we’ve been referring to it as the “Aggregator”. It includes
slightly-modified Horizon and Keystone services, together with a subsystem
which configures these services to implement the mapping of “Aggregator
Regions” to multiple, administratively independent, “Provider Regions”. Just as
the User-Provider relationship in OpenStack is “on demand”, we want the
Aggregator-Provider mappings to be dynamic, established by APIs, rather than
statically configured. We want to achieve this without substantially changing
the user experience, and with no changes to applications or to core OpenStack
services. The Aggregator represents an additional way of accessing a cloud; it
does not replace the existing Horizon and Keystone.
The functionality and workflow is as follows: A user, X, logs into the Horizon
interface provided by Aggregator A. The user sees two Regions, V1 and V2, and
selects V1. This Region is actually provided by OpenStack service provider P;
it’s the Region which P knows as R4. X now creates a new tenant project, T.
Leveraging the Hierarchical Multitenancy work in Kilo, T is actually
instantiated as a subproject of a Domain in R4, thus providing namespace
isolation and quota management. Now X can deploy and operate her project T as
she is used to, using Horizon, CLI, or other client-side tools. UI and API
requests are forwarded by the Aggregator to P’s Region R4. [I’ll transfer this
to the wiki and add diagrams.]
As noted, the high-level workflow is relatively straightforward, but we need to
understand two important concepts. First, how does P make R4 available for use
by A? Are all of the services and resources in R4 available to A, or can P
restrict things in some way? What’s the lifecycle of the relationship?
Secondly, how do we handle identity? Can we arrange that same identity provider
is used in the Aggregator and in the relevant domain within R4? One answer to
these issues is to introduce what Mark Shuttleworth called “virtual Regions” at
his talk in Paris; add a layer which exposes a Domain within a Region (with
associated IDM, quotas, and other policies) as a browsable, consumable resource
aggregate. To implement this, P can add a new service to R4, the Virtual Region
Manager, with the twin roles of defining Virtual Regions in terms of physical
Region resources, and managing the service provider side of the negotiation
with the Aggregator when setting up Aggregator-to-provider mappings. The
intention is that the Virtual Region Manager will be a non-disruptive add-on to
an existing OpenStack deployment.
Obviously there are many more issues to be solved, both within OpenStack and
outside (especially in the areas of OSS and BSS). However, we have the
beginnings of an architecture which seems to address many of the interesting
use cases. The immediate question is how to implement it within the OpenStack
process. It’s too complicated for any one of the existing OpenStack projects to
take it on; large-scale proposals rarely do well in this community. So we
intend to start this work as a new Stackforge project, with the objective of
completing a first version during the Liberty cycle. To meet this goal, we must
identify all of the features or fixes that we’ll need in other OpenStack
projects, and submit them for the Liberty cycle. (This is time critical!)
Hopefully each of these changes will be small enough that it can be accepted
without too much debate. The two projects most affected will be Keystone and
Horizon; in many cases, we will need to replace a static configuration with
something more dynamic.
We think the time is right to begin this work. The Keystone team paved the way
during Kilo with their work on Hierarchical Multitenancy, and during the
Liberty cycle we expect to see work in other projects that will build on this.
(Hierarchical quotas, aggregated Ceilometer queries, that kind of thing). By
starting the Cloud Service Federation project within Stackforge, we hope to
avoid the “complexity antibodies”. However we really need to get this proposal
in front of OpenStack developers, because it’s critically important to identify
unexpected dependencies as soon as possible. For this reason, we’d like to
discuss it in Vancouver as part of the cross-project track in the Design Summit.
Geoff Arnold
Cisco Cloud Services
geoff(at)geoffarnold.com
geoarnol(at)cisco.com
@geoffarnold
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
