On 1 March 2018 at 15:43, Han Zhou <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:26 PM, Guru Shetty <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 1 March 2018 at 12:21, Han Zhou <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:13 PM, Guru Shetty <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On 28 February 2018 at 19:37, Han Zhou <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > >> >> Reported-at: https://mail.openvswitch.org/ > pipermail/ovs-discuss/2018-February/046166.html > >> >> Signed-off-by: Han Zhou <[email protected]> > >> > > >> > > >> > 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 [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
