Juergen, thanks,

I'm now working on updating the text with Hirochika.


> note that there is outdated text on page 9 that should be updated:
> 
>   The MIB module provides a few writable objects that can be used to
>   make non-persistent changes, e.g., changing the memory allocation or
>   the CPU allocation.  It is not the goal of this MIB module to provide
>   a configuration interface for virtual machines since other protocols
>   and data modeling languages are more suitable for this task.

OK, we've removed the above paragraph.  The latest text in the repository 
does't have it.


> OLD
> 
>   There are two objects defined in this MIB,
>   vmPerVMNotificationsEnabled and vmBulkNotificationsEnabled, that have
>   a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write.  Such objects may be considered
>   sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments.
> 
> NEW
> 
>   There are two objects defined in this MIB,
>   vmPerVMNotificationsEnabled and vmBulkNotificationsEnabled, that
>   have a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write. Enabling notifications can
>   lead to a noticeable number of notifications if many virtual
>   machines change their state concurrently. Hence, such objects may
>   be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments.

OK, the above text has been merged.

---
Keiichi SHIMA (島 慶一)
WIDE project <[email protected]>
Research Laboratory, IIJ Innovation Institute, Inc <[email protected]>



> On 2015/05/26, at 17:52, Juergen Schoenwaelder 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Keiichi,
> 
> note that there is outdated text on page 9 that should be updated:
> 
>   The MIB module provides a few writable objects that can be used to
>   make non-persistent changes, e.g., changing the memory allocation or
>   the CPU allocation.  It is not the goal of this MIB module to provide
>   a configuration interface for virtual machines since other protocols
>   and data modeling languages are more suitable for this task.
> 
> In the security considerations, I assume Dan wants:
> 
> OLD
> 
>   There are two objects defined in this MIB,
>   vmPerVMNotificationsEnabled and vmBulkNotificationsEnabled, that have
>   a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write.  Such objects may be considered
>   sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments.
> 
> NEW
> 
>   There are two objects defined in this MIB,
>   vmPerVMNotificationsEnabled and vmBulkNotificationsEnabled, that
>   have a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write. Enabling notifications can
>   lead to a noticeable number of notifications if many virtual
>   machines change their state concurrently. Hence, such objects may
>   be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments.
> 
> /js
> 
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 07:23:17AM +0000, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I would still recommend that you add text in the Security Considerations 
>> section in which you describe the risk of intentional or unintentional 
>> misconfiguration of the two writeable objects in the MIB module. It would 
>> also be useful to mention explicitly that the authors considered the risks 
>> of multiplication of notification and evaluated it as manageable for all 
>> reasonably designed and sized networks. 
>> 
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
>>> university.de]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 9:47 AM
>>> To: Keiichi SHIMA
>>> Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email protected];
>>> [email protected]; [email protected]
>>> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib-02
>>> 
>>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:45:48AM +0900, Keiichi SHIMA wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>>>> 17.  I am concerned that the current way of defining the
>>>>>> notifications switches is too course. Hypervisors may have many VMs
>>>>>> in charge, and if each generates one notification per each state
>>>>>> changes the numbers can become big even in normal operation. Maybe
>>>>>> some throttling mechanism would be useful. Or maybe a couple of
>>>>>> more switches that allow to enable only 'critical' notifications
>>>>>> (e.g. vmCrashed).
>>>>> 
>>>>> The only situation I can think of where the number of notifications
>>>>> will be significant is during restart of a whole rack with many
>>>>> hypervisors inside. But even then, things usually take time. (I
>>>>> think our Xen hypervisors actually create virtual machines
>>>>> sequentially and hence the notifications get actually spaced over
>>>>> time.) It is not unlikely that the operating systems inside the
>>>>> hypervisors during startup generate significantly more network
>>>>> traffic compared to a few hypervisor notifications. That said,
>>>>> during the development of the MIB module we moved from generic
>>> state
>>>>> change notifications to a set of specific notifications and this
>>>>> allows to use SNMPv3 notification filtering to filter out notifications
>>> people find not useful.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I and Asai talked locally and we agree Juergen that the number of
>>> notification events is manageable.
>>>> 
>>>> However we noticed that the 'vmBlocked' notification may be a problem.
>>> The 'blocked' state is defined as 'The operational state of the virtual 
>>> machine
>>> indicating the execution of the virtual machine is currently blocked, e.g.,
>>> waiting for some action of the hypervisor to finish.  This is a transient 
>>> state
>>> from/to other states.'  This state transition event may appear more
>>> frequently than other events, since the state is caused by the I/O scheduler
>>> of the hyper visor implementation.
>>>> 
>>>> We think we can simply remove the 'vmBlocked' notification.  The 'blocked'
>>> state is a transient state and typically return to the previous state
>>> immediately (once the pending I/O requests completed).
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes, this makes sense to me.
>>> 
>>> /js
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>>> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jacobs-
>>> 2Duniversity.de_&d=AwIBAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31O
>>> cNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=MgxJDgRk1TpLrZ2hiPqtqSLH_gUN
>>> Xo4hIzz7Czjm6c0&s=0FOhbeoR7FEAGZddNHtPDimJFq1MNfZlAEOjldkr1tA&e
>>> = >
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Reply via email to