Agree!
+1

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Lingxian Kong <anlin.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, shihanzhang:
>
> Thanks for bringing this up, again.
>
> As I said before, this blueprint will solve the problems that the
> 'hard-coded' rules related to the default security group we are
> suffering from, which I do think will give Fawad an anser. So, I
> really hope that we can particapate all together to make this happen
> in Kilo.
>
> 2014-09-17 10:11 GMT+08:00 shihanzhang <ayshihanzh...@126.com>:
> > As I know there is no a way to disable default security groups, but I
> think
> > this BP can solve this problem:
> >
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/default-rules-for-default-security-group
> >
> >
> > 在 2014-09-17 07:44:42,"Aaron Rosen" <aaronoro...@gmail.com> 写道:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Inline:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Fawad Khaliq <fa...@plumgrid.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> I have had discussions with some folks individually about this but I
> would
> >> like bring this to a broader audience.
> >>
> >> I have been playing with security groups and I see the notion of
> 'default'
> >> security group seems to create some nuisance/issues.
> >>
> >> There are list of things I have noticed so far:
> >>
> >> Tenant for OpenStack services (normally named service/services) also
> ends
> >> up having default security group.
> >> Port create operation ends up ensuring default security groups for all
> the
> >> tenants as this completely seems out of the context of the tenant the
> port
> >> operation takes place. (bug?)
> >> Race conditions where if system is stressed and Neutron tries to ensure
> >> the first default security group and in parallel another call comes,
> Neutron
> >> ends up trying to create multiple default security groups as the checks
> for
> >> duplicate groups are invalidated as soon as the call make past a certain
> >> point in code.
> >
> > Right this is a bug. We should catch this foreign key constraint
> exception
> > here and pass as the default security group was already created. We do
> > something similar here when ports are created as there is a similar race
> for
> > ip_allocation.
> >>
> >>
> >> API performance where orchestration chooses to spawn 1000 tenants and we
> >> see unnecessary overhead
> >>
> >> For plugins that use RESTful proxy backends require the backend systems
> to
> >> be up at the time neutron starts. [Minor, but affects some packaging
> >> solutions]
> >
> >
> > This is probably always a requirement for neutron to work so I don't
> think
> > it's related.
> >>
> >>
> >> To summarize, is there a way to disable default security groups?
> Expected
> >> answer is no; can we introduce a way to disable it? If that does not
> make
> >> sense, should we go ahead and fix the issues around it?
> >
> >
> > I think we should fix these bugs you pointed out.
> >>
> >>
> >> I am sure some of you must have seen some of these issues and solved
> them
> >> already. Please do share how do tackle these issues?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Fawad Khaliq
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards!
> -----------------------------------
> Lingxian Kong
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>



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

Reply via email to