I also support the idea of having 2 VIPs. The external one can handle all the 
untrusted traffic and the internal one the trusted one. So, you don’t need to 
enable SSL on all the internal traffic and then we speed up the control plane.

Edgar

From: Robert Starmer <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 3:55 PM
To: "Steven Dake (stdake)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: 
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [kolla] Question about how Operators deploy

+1 on two VIPs

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:04 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi folks,

Unfortunately I won't be able to make it to the Operator midcycle because of 
budget constraints or I would find the answer to this question there.  The 
Kolla upstream is busy sorting out external ssl termination and a question 
arose in the Kolla community around operator requirements for publicURL vs 
internalURL VIP management.

At present, Kolla creates 3 Haproxy containers across 3 HA nodes with one VIP 
managed by keepalived.  The VIP is used for internal communication only.  Our 
PUBLIC_URL is set to a DNS name, and we expect the Operator to sort out how to 
map that DNS name to the internal VIP used by Kolla.  The way I do this in my 
home lab is to use NAT to NAT my public_URL from the internet (hosted by 
dyndns) to my internal VIP that haproxies to my 3 HA control nodes.  This is 
secure assuming someone doesn't bust through my NAT.

An alternative has been suggested which is to use TWO vips.  One for 
internal_url, one for public_url.  Then the operator would only be responsible 
for selecting where to to allocate the public_url endpoint's VIP.  I think this 
allows more flexibility without necessarily requiring NAT while still 
delivering a secure solution.

Not having ever run an OpenStack cloud in production, how do the Operators want 
it?  Our deciding factor here is what Operators want, not what is necessarily 
currently in the code base.  We still have time to make this work differently 
for Mitaka, but I need feedback/advice quickly.

The security guide seems to imply two VIPs are the way to Operate: (big 
diagram):
http://docs.openstack.org/security-guide/networking/architecture.html

The IRC discussion is here for reference:
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23kolla/%23kolla.2016-02-12.log.html#t2016-02-12T12:09:08

Thanks in Advance!
-steve


_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators


_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Reply via email to