Regarding performance, is there a plan to incorporate Netscaler's CloudBridge feature (basically a site-to-site VPN) ?
-----Original Message----- From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 3:09 PM To: CloudStack DeveloperList Subject: Re: site-to-site VPN review Also, if we could put out an example Cisco / Juniper configuration that is known to work with the CloudStack site-to-site VPN, that would be great. On 7/2/12 3:06 PM, "Chiradeep Vittal" <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > > >On 7/2/12 2:33 PM, "Sheng Yang" <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: > >>On Monday, July 02, 2012 12:48:33 PM Chiradeep Vittal wrote: >>> I took another look at the FS >>> >>>http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/DesignDocs/Site-to-site+VPN+functi >>>ona >>>l >>>+sp >>> ec And the test suite >>> http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/QA/Site-to-Site+VPN >>> >>> >>> 1. It isn't clear if we are going to use pre-shared keys (PSK) or >>> public-key (RSA keys) * If PSK, who generates this and what is the >>> strength of this key? * Can this PSK be changed / revoked ? >> >>We're using PSK. Currently user generate the psk key and program it on >>the both side of VPN. Update the spec. > >The Remote Access Vpn service generates the PSK on the user's behalf. >This makes it easier for the cloud admin to enforce key strength. >This is also the way AWS VPC works. > >> >>> 2. Why is this restricted to admin only? >> >>Currently only admin can create/delete private gateway and vpn gateway >>of VPC. >>Though Alena just update me that he/she can do it on behavior of other >>account. >> >>> 3. Does this require "conserve mode = true" ? >> >>Currently we only support VPC, so it's no conserve mode here. >> >>I think even in the future when we support isolated guest network, >>this wouldn't be an restriction. >> >>> 4. Is NAT traversal supported? >> >>Yes. I enabled it in openswan configuration. >> >>> 5. FS and test suite in my mind should cover FCAPS (faults, >>>configuration, >>> administration, performance, security) * How do you deal with faults? >> >>DPD would try to keep it recover and connected. >> >>> What happens when the VR is restarted? >> >>Currently we didn't restart VPN connection automatically. I would fix >>that. >> >>> What happens if VR gets disconnected from the remote end? >> >>DPD would try to recover it. I've set a 3 time retry for initial >>connection, but not sure about how many time it would retry in the >>disconnection after that. >> >>> * The API parameters and responses need to be more >>> completely documented. >> >>Sure. >> >>> * If a user complains that his s-2-s VPN is not >>> working / used to work but does not now, how can customer support >>>diagnose this problem? >> >>Log is in the /var/log/auth.log and /var/log/daemon.log. I didn't pull >>it out to separate files because openswan separate log output lacks of >>timestamp. > >Can we think of a better way? Are these logs being rotated / archived? >I think the former is, not sure about the latter. > >> >>> * How well does this perform: what is the target throughput >>> and what is the size (RAM/CPU) needed to achieve this performance? >> >>Not tested yet. >> >>> * Is there a need for a later kernel on the VR for AES support? >> >>No. AES can be done by software as well. > >What I mean is: take advantage of acceleration offered by Intel chips >that implement the AES-NI instruction. It is my understanding that the >current bits of the VR are unable to do this. > >> >>> * How secure >>> is this implementation? Can the PSK be guessed? Are the latest >>> security patches for OpenSwan available in the VR? >> >>The level of security is the same as normal site to site implementation. >>So it >>depends on PSK to be generated. Since we didn't generated it, user >>controls it. >> >>For the security upgrade, it would be a common issue rather than vpn >>specified. >>We lack of up-to-date security upgrade mechanism. I suppose it's >>should in the plan. > >My point is that when the feature is released, there shouldn't be any >known security issues with the software and it should be patched to the >latest level. Of course, future security issues is a different question. > >> >>--Sheng >
