Another approach would be to use a single IP address per router
    per compute
    node.  This avoids the multi-tenant issue mentioned above, at the
    cost of
    consuming more IP addresses, potentially one default SNAT IP
    address for each
    VM on the compute server (which is the case when every VM on the
    compute node
    is from a different tenant and/or using a different router).  At
    that point
    you might as well give each VM a floating IP.

    Hence the approach taken with the initial DVR implementation is to
    keep
    default SNAT as a centralized service.


In contrast to moving service to distributed CN, we should take care of keeping them as centralized, especially FIP and FW. I know a lot of customer prefer using some dedicated servers to act as network nodes, which have more NICs(as external connection) than compute nodes, in these cases FIP must be centralized instead of being distributed. As for FW, if we want stateful ACL then DVR can do nothing, except that we think security group is already some kind of FW.

+1, I had another email to discuss about FW (FWaaS) and DVR integration. Traditionally, we run firewall with router so that firewall can use route and NAT info from router. since DVR is asymmetric when handling traffic, it is hard to run stateful firewall on top of DVR just like a traditional firewall does . When the NAT is in the picture, the situation can be even worse.
Yi


_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to