Hi German, Thanks for the initiative. I am currently working for few of the FWaaS BP's proposed for Liberty and definitely would like to be a part of this effort.
BTW did you mean FWaaS IRC meeting to take up this discussion further? Thanks Vikram On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Kyle Mestery <mest...@mestery.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Eichberger, German < > german.eichber...@hp.com> wrote: > >> All, >> >> >> During the FWaaS session in Vancouver [1] it became apparent that both >> the FWaaS API and the Security Groups API are lacking in functionality and >> the connection between the two is not well defined. >> >> >> For instance if a cloud user opens up all ports in the security groups >> they still can’t connect and might figure out days later that there is a >> second API (FWaaS) which prevents him from connecting to his service. This >> will probably make for a frustrating experience. >> >> >> Similarly, the operators I spoke to all said that the current FWaaS >> implementation isn’t going far enough and needs a lot of missing >> functionality added to fulfill their requirements on a Firewall >> implementation. >> >> >> With that backdrop I am proposing to take a step back and assemble a >> group of operators and users to collect use cases for the firewall service >> – both FWaaS and Security Groups based. I believe it is important at this >> juncture to really focus on the users and less on technical limitations. I >> also think this reset is necessary to make a service which meets the needs >> of operators and users better. >> >> >> Once we have collected the use cases we can evaluate our current API’s >> and functionality and start making the necessary improvements to turn FWaaS >> into a service which covers most of the use cases and requirements. >> >> >> Please join me in this effort. We have set up an etherpad [2] to start >> collecting the use cases and will discuss them in an upcoming meeting. >> >> > Thanks for sending this out German. I took home the same impressions that > you did. Similar to what we did with the LBaaS project (to great success > last summer), I think we should look at FWaaS API V2 with the new > contributors coming on as equals and helping to define the new operator > focused API. My suggestion is we look at doing the work to lay the > foundation during Liberty for a successful launch of this API during the > Mxx cycle. I'm happy to step in here and guide the new group of > contributors similar to what we did for LBaaS. > > Thanks, > Kyle > > >> >> Thanks, >> >> German >> >> >> >> >> >> [1] >> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-neutron-sg-fwaas-future-direction >> >> [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/fwaas_use_cases >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: >> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev