On 1 March 2018 at 15:43, Han Zhou <zhou...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:26 PM, Guru Shetty <g...@ovn.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1 March 2018 at 12:21, Han Zhou <zhou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:13 PM, Guru Shetty <g...@ovn.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 28 February 2018 at 19:37, Han Zhou <zhou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> This patch enables using port group names in ACL match conditions.
> >> >> Users can create a port group in northbound DB Port_Group table,
> >> >> and then use the name of the port group in ACL match conditions
> >> >> for "inport" or "outport". It can help reduce the number of ACLs
> >> >> for CMS clients such as OpenStack Neutron, for the use cases
> >> >> where a group of logical ports share same ACL rules except the
> >> >> "inport"/"outport" part. Without this patch, the clients have to
> >> >> create N (N = number of lports) ACLs, and this patch helps achieve
> >> >> the same goal with only one ACL. E.g.:
> >> >>
> >> >> to-lport 1000 "outport == @port_group1 && ip4.src == {IP1, IP2,
> ...}" allow-related
> >> >>
> >> >> There was a similar attempt by Zong Kai Li in 2016 [1]. This patch
> >> >> takes a slightly different approach by using weak refs instead of
> >> >> strings, which requires a new table instead of reusing the address
> >> >> set table. This way it will also benefit for a follow up patch that
> >> >> enables generating address sets automatically from port groups to
> >> >> avoid a lot a trouble from client perspective [2].
> >> >>
> >> >> [1] https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2016-August/
> 077118.html
> >> >> [2] https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/2018-
> February/046260.html
> >> >>
> >> >> Reported-by: Daniel Alvarez Sanchez <dalva...@redhat.com>
> >> >> Reported-at: https://mail.openvswitch.org/
> pipermail/ovs-discuss/2018-February/046166.html
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Han Zhou <hzh...@ebay.com>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Wouldn't it be more complete and useful if we add the acl to a port
> group too? And then internally, you decide which switches you want to add
> the ACL to.
> >> >
> >> > For e.g: ovn-nbctl --port-group add-acl port_group1 to-lport 1000
> "outport == @port_group1 && ip4.src == {IP1, IP2, ...}" allow-related
> >> >
> >> > This way, the client does not have to keep track of all the logical
> switches it needs to apply an ACL to. Thoughts?
> >> >
> >> Yes, this is a good idea. Since it is only about the ovn-nbctl tool
> improvement, it can be a follow up patch.
> >
> >
> > What if we have something like a acl column in the port_group table so
> that we just have one entry in OVN NB database? Logically, we apply a ACL
> to a security group instead of a  logical switch. And then ovn-northd
> decided which logical switches to apply it to. Would that make difference
> in performance? It does reduce the size of the NB database. Any drawbacks?
> >
> Ok, I thought you were talking about ovn-nbctl tool only. Now I get your
> point. I think it is a good idea, since it is a common work for different
> clients: figuring out which lswitches are needed for each group of ACLs.
>
Right. And sending in multiple ACLs and deleting multiple ACLs instead of
just one ACL with this approach.



> So it makes sense to simplify clients implementation and support the
> feature in OVN. I think it would be better to have 2 columns for ACLs on
> port-groups, one for to-lports, the other for from-lports. And the match
> condition "outport/inport == @<port group name>" should be automatically
> added by northd when processing, instead of filling in the redundant
> information by clients. Would this sounds better?
>

I don't have a strong opinion either way. Doing as you suggest makes it
simpler, but probably a little harder explaining in documentation as there
is a general difference with lswitch ACL.


>
> This should be able to work without breaking the existing mechanism of
> specifying ACLs in lswitches. So existing ACL users should not be affected.
>
Agreed.


>
> Performance could be better in clients (networking-ovn, kubernetes-ovn,
> etc.), since there is no need to figuring out the lswitch list to apply
> ACLs, although not sure how much improvement it could be.
>
For ovn-kubernetes, it makes quite a bit of difference as we don't need to
send ACL addition to multiple switches (which can be as many nodes in the
cluster)



> Performance impact from ovn-northd perspective is not sure, because there
> are less data to process from OVN-NB, but more processing needed for the
> port-group attached ACLs handling.
>
> I can work on it as a follow up patch on top of the current implementation.
>
Thanks! Looking forward to it!
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to