Please find my comments inline. Thanks, Jayapal
> -----Original Message----- > From: Sangeetha Hariharan [mailto:sangeetha.hariha...@citrix.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 2:17 AM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alena Prokharchyk > Subject: RE: StaticNAT, Portforwarding and FIrewall implemenation on the > SRX > > Hi Jayapal, > > Had the following questions after reviewing the FS. > > > 1) "Case 4: > Firewall rule is not deleted when disable the Static NAT. > 1. Acquire Ip P4. > 2. Create Firewall for port 22. > 3. Enable static NAT on P2 for VM2. > 4. Disable static NAT. > 5. Enable static NAT > 7.PublicNetwork# ssh <P4> (ssh to VM1 should success)" > > In this case, step 3 , i assume should be P4. Yes, It is P4 > > After Step4 , In the SRX side , we will see both the firewall rule and static > NAT > being deleted. But in cloud DB we will still have the firewall rules present. > Is > this correct? > Correct > After Step5 , In the SRX side , we will see both the firewall rule and static > NAT > being created back in SRX side. Is this correct? > Correct > 2) What will the behavior in the following use case where user deletes a > firewall that was created for a Static NAT rule ? Firewall and static nat both created in SRX. > > 1. Acquire Ip address. > 2. Create an Static NAT rule. > 3. Create Firewall rules for port 22. > 4. Create Firewall rule for port 80. > 5. Delete firewall rule for port 22. > 6. Delete firewall rule for port 80. > 7. Add firewall rule for port 22. > > After Step 5 , > In SRX , we expect the firewall rule for port 22 to be deleted. > > After Step 6 , > > In SRX , Do we expect the firewall rule for port 80 and Static NAT rule to be > deleted ? Yes > > After Step 7 , > > In SRX , Do we expect the firewall rule for port 22 and Static NAT rule to be > created ? Yes > > -Thanks > Sangeetha > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jayapal Reddy Uradi [mailto:jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 7:43 AM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alena Prokharchyk > Subject: RE: StaticNAT, Portforwarding and FIrewall implemenation on the > SRX > > Updated the FS as per the discussion. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Static+NAT,+Por > t+Forwarding+and+Firewall+Implementation+on+SRX > > > Thanks, > Jayapal > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jayapal Reddy Uradi [mailto:jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:44 PM > > To: Alena Prokharchyk; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: RE: StaticNAT, Portforwarding and FIrewall implemenation on > > the SRX > > > > Please see my comments inline. > > > > -Jayapal > > > > From: Alena Prokharchyk > > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 10:04 PM > > To: Jayapal Reddy Uradi; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: StaticNAT, Portforwarding and FIrewall implemenation on > > the SRX > > > > > > > > From: Jayapal Reddy Uradi > > <jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com<mailto:jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com>> > > To: Alena Prokharchyk > > <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com<mailto:alena.prokharc...@citrix.com>>, > > "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org<mailto:cloudstack- > > d...@incubator.apache.org>" <cloudstack- > > d...@incubator.apache.org<mailto:cloudstack- > d...@incubator.apache.org>> > > Subject: RE: StaticNAT, Portforwarding and FIrewall implemenation on > > the SRX > > > > Hi Alena, > > > > Please see my comments inline, > > > > -Jayapal > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alena Prokharchyk > > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 10:19 PM > > To: Jayapal Reddy Uradi; cloudstack- > > d...@incubator.apache.org<mailto:cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: StaticNAT, Portforwarding and FIrewall implemenation on > > the SRX Jayapal, please see my comments inline. > > -Alena. > > On 10/11/12 11:07 PM, "Jayapal Reddy Uradi" > > <jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com<mailto:jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com>> > > wrote: > > >Alena, > > > > > >Please find my inline comments. > > > > > >Thanks, > > >Jayapal > > > > > >Thanks, > > >Jayapal > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Alena Prokharchyk > > >Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 5:54 AM > > >To: > > >cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org<mailto:cloudstack- > > d...@incubator.apa > > >che.org>; Jayapal Reddy Uradi > > >Subject: Re: StaticNAT, Portforwarding and FIrewall implemenation on > > >the SRX > > > > > >Jayapal, I reviewed the spec. My comments: > > > > > >If firewall rules per public IP address can't be configured on the > > >SRX, and there is no way to fix it (your spec says so in "Limitation" > > >section), why do we introduce all this complexity? To me it seems > > >like we are trying to show the user that he is controlling public > > >ports on SRX, while in fact it's not true. It should work just like > > >it used to work > > >before: the Ingress traffic flow from public to guest interfaces > > >should be controlled by PF/StaticNat/LB rule; Ingress traffic to > > >public ip address is allowed always. When there is no PF/LB/StaticNat > > >rule for the Guest network port, the traffic to Guest port is > > >blocked. Once you create PF rule for publicIp > > >+ guestIp, the access to the specific port of the Guest network is > > >+ opened > > >automatically. The example below (taken from the spec): > > > > > >Example: > > > > > >1. Acquire IP P1. > > >2. Create Firewall for port 22 - port 22. > > >3. Configure the port forwarding for Public IP P1, user VM V1 4. > > >Acquire another IP P2. > > >5. Enable staticNAT on P2 for VM V1 > > > > > >//Jayapal > > >Let me change the case here and going to update in FS. > > >6.Add firewall rule for P2 for VM V1 on ports 80 7. Now In SRX, using > > >P2 user can access the VM V1 ports 22 and 80. > > Still doesn't work like the regular Firewall rule. You enabled > > Firewall for port > > 22 on P1, and for port 80 on P2 and it results in being able to access > > port 22/80 on P2? Firewall rule on one public IP should never affect > > the behavior of another public IP. That's not how Firewall rule is supposed > to work. > > > > > >7. Now P1 and P2 both can access the VM port 22 - /// you haven't > > >created the Firewall rule for the P2, yet the access from it is > > >enabled implicitly to 22:22 port. It's very confusing. In other > > >words, the firewall rule created for P1 ip should never ever control > > >the access to > > >P2 ip address. > > > > > > > > >We need to fix the original issue - make StaticNat rules on the SRX. > > >For that we have to treat firewall rule as a static nat rule for a > > >particular port by SRX device if the static nat is enabled for this > > >public ip address in the cloudStack. In all other cases Firewall rule > > >should be just ignored. > > > > > >//Jayapal > > >I agree with ignoring firewall for port forwarding. > > >But in VR the PF rule works only after adding Firewall rule for the > > >public ports. > > It is ok to leave it the old way for the SRX. Your limitation clearly > > says that you can't control the public IP / ports on the SRX anyway. > > So lets just fix the Static nat rule; it would also leave less chance > > for regressing in PF rules functionality. > > > > > >CASE1: > > > > > >* Get Ip1. > > >* Create PF rule for IP1 and port 22 VM1. Now you can access the Vm1. > > >* Create firewall rule for Ip1. SRX should just ignore this request > > >as it will not do anything > > > > > > > > >CASE2: > > > > > >* Get IP2 > > >* Enable static nat on the IP2 and VM1. Nothing is sent to SRX just yet. > > >* Create firewall rule for IP2 and ports 22-23. Send enable static > > >nat for > > >IP2/VM1 and port 22-23 to the SRX device > > >* Repeat last step for each port (port range) you want to enable > > >static nat for. > > > > > >//Jayapal > > >In SRX, below issue can still exist. > > >Case3: > > >In addition to CASE1, CASE2, Create another PF rule for IP1 and port > > >80 VM1. Now you can access the Vm1 port 80. > > >Now P2 can access the port 80 without Firewall rule on Port 80. > > >Because security policy in SRX is not differentiated for Public IPs. > > You can never create the PF or LB rule for the ip address that has > > Static nat rule assigned. > > [Jayapal] > > But we can create > > - PF: P1, VM V1 and ports 22-22 > > - Static NAT: P2 VM V1, and Firewall port 80 Here P2 can access V1's > > ports 22, 80. This is specific to SRX. > > > > If it was always the case for SRX, then we just have to document it. I > > believe even with the initial design you've proposed, it would have been > the case. > > You can't control public ports with Firewall rules. > > Please confirm. > > [Jayapal] > > This case is always with the SRX. > > > > > > > >In other words, you have to make the translation of Firewall rule of > > >the cloudStack to ConfigureStaticNat on SRX when the targeted public > > >IP address is Static nat enabled. In all other cases Firewall > > >commands should be just ignored by the SRX device. > > > > > > > > >Let me know what you think, > > >//Jayapal > > >I agree with you. > > >Current port forwarding rule have Public Port range and Private Port > > >range. > > >So port forwarding allows only the Public Ports that we added. Again > > >allowing Ports using Firewall is of no use. > > >Example: > > >Port forwarding rule: public Ports 22 and private ports 22 Here Port > > >Forwarding can allow only 22. so no need to explicitly add using > > >the firewall to allow If you don¹t want to allow the ports DELETE the > > >Port Forwarding rule. > > >On top of PF adding Firewall rule to allow ports 22-80 of no use > > >because there is port forwarding rule for 23-80. > > It's allright. We can change the UI to disable Firewall rule block on > > the networking diagram (when the PF provider is SRX). So only PF/LB > > and Static nat functionality will be enabled. For opening ports for > > static nat the UI will still be using createFirewall rule calls, but > > it will not be shown to the user as "Firewall" > > > > > >-Alena. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On 10/11/12 6:16 AM, "Jayapal Reddy Uradi" > > ><jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com<mailto:jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com>> > > >wrote: > > > > > >>StaticNAT, PortForwarding and Firewall current functionality in > > >>SRX is not similar to the Virtual router. > > >>This functional spec describes the what configuration possible on > > >>the SRX and also the limitation of SRX compared to the functionality in > VR. > > >> > > >>Please find the functional spec here: > > > >>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Static+NAT,+P > > or > > >>t > > >>+Fo > > >>rwarding+and+Firewall+Implementation+on+SRX > > >> > > >>Please provide your comments on configuring the SRX device to get > > >>functionality similar to VR. > > >> > > >>Thanks, > > >>Jayapal > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
