Re: [openstack-dev] Hierarchical administrative boundary [keystone]
Hi Arvind, This seems to be covering one of the use cases listed by https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprint-VPC. Others to isolate between VPCs include shared resources like networks, images, roles, and other configuration. Subbu On May 8, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Tiwari, Arvind arvind.tiw...@hp.com wrote: Hi All, Below is my proposal to address VPC use case using hierarchical administrative boundary. This topic is scheduled in Hierarchical Multitenancysession of Atlanta design summit. https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Hierarchical_administrative_boundary Please take a look. Thanks, Arvind ___ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] Hierarchical administrative boundary [keystone]
Hi All, Totally agree with Allamaraju. Only hierarchical administrative boundary is not enough, the definition of internal network architecture within one domain is very important. The networking among projects in one domain could be isolated or not, the access to external network may be not only controlled at domain level, but also at project level. Allamaraju's proposal can solve these issues well. My question is how to solve multi-region scenario? May the VPC cross multiple OpenStack instances? The role for different resources visibility is also need to be defined for the VPC solution. Best Regards Chaoyi Huang( Joe Huang) -邮件原件- 发件人: Allamaraju, Subbu [mailto:su...@subbu.org] 发送时间: 2014年5月13日 20:55 收件人: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 主题: Re: [openstack-dev] Hierarchical administrative boundary [keystone] Hi Arvind, This seems to be covering one of the use cases listed by https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprint-VPC. Others to isolate between VPCs include shared resources like networks, images, roles, and other configuration. Subbu On May 8, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Tiwari, Arvind arvind.tiw...@hp.com wrote: Hi All, Below is my proposal to address VPC use case using hierarchical administrative boundary. This topic is scheduled in Hierarchical Multitenancysession of Atlanta design summit. https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Hierarchical_administrative_boundary Please take a look. Thanks, Arvind ___ 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 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Hierarchical administrative boundary [keystone]
Tiwari, Could you elaborate how to solve the issue by using unique role names ? With domain model, services like nova have to be aware of domain admin user and cloud admin user by roles. domain admin manage IAM resources and non-IAM resources by inheriting roles to projects, cloud admin have additional privilege to enable/disable OpenStack services. But the admin role can be granted by a domain user to its own user. How nova api identity a user is real admin user that in admin domain? 2014-05-10 2:23 GMT+08:00 Tiwari, Arvind arvind.tiw...@hp.com: Hi All, Thanks for looking in to my proposal. Below are my comments and answers to questions which is based on “my personal opinion”. *Why domain hierarchy, why not project hierarchy? *Because project hierarchy is more impactful and need cross project changes. As per my understanding we all are trying to solve one business use problem, which is “how to support VPC or Reseller” model on OS based cloud deployment. As per problem described in different proposals, it is purely a IAM use case, where different identities (users, admins, reseller ….) has different perception about the system/resources (IAM and non IAM) and they want ability to manage them. Keystone (OS IAM service) abstracts all the IAM complexity from lower level services (Nova, Swift, cinder …) by providing unified integration model (auth token and verification by auth middleware). Lover level services trusts Keystone and allow access (for particular requests) to actual resource based on subject’s roles provided by keystone. Each service supports multi tenancy and tenancy mapping is establish by keystone through projects. If hierarchy enforced at project level then we need to propagate the hierarchy info to all lower level services, where the hierarchy info is not serving any good purpose but just used to map one tenant. Enforcing the hierarchy at project level is more impactful because all services have to change their implementation to consume the notion of hierarchy. Propagating project hierarchy to services would make sense if end resources (VMs, cinder volumes , swift resource ….) does obey the hierarchy based on projects, I think that is not the case. As per definition domains are container for projects, users and groups and maps well with a business entities (ProductionIT, SuperDevShop, WidgetMaster, SPI, reseller .). Using domain to establish hierarchy (as per my design) will abstract the complexity from lower level services. Services don’t have to worry about the domain hierarchy and we can retain the current integration (Keystone project - service Tenant ) model and no need to make big change in different service. Mostly one place change which is Keystone. *Services has to be domain aware* IMO services (Nova, Swift …) don’t have to be domain aware (Unless I am missing something) as they manage resources for keystone projects. Domain is IAM concept which used to scope IAM resources and not very useful for end services. I think what we are lacking is unique role (role name) per service, having unique role names for each service (IAM, Nova, Swift ….) will resolve the problem mentioned below by Yaguang Tang. Please let me know why services have to be domain aware? Thoughts? Thanks, Arvind Note: IAM Resources – Users, groups, projects … Non IAM resources – VMs, Swift objects, ……. *From:* Yaguang Tang [mailto:yaguang.t...@canonical.com] *Sent:* Friday, May 09, 2014 4:33 AM *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] Hierarchical administrative boundary [keystone] *Frittoli,* I think for other services we could achieve that by modifying the policy.json( add domain admin role and control what the cloud admin can do ) so that domain admin user is able to manage resources belong to users and projects in that domain. 2014-05-09 15:24 GMT+08:00 Frittoli, Andrea (HP Cloud) fritt...@hp.com: *From:* Adam Young [mailto:ayo...@redhat.com] *Sent:* 09 May 2014 04:19 *To:* openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] Hierarchical administrative boundary [keystone] On 05/08/2014 07:55 PM, Tiwari, Arvind wrote: Hi All, Below is my proposal to address VPC use case using hierarchical administrative boundary. This topic is scheduled in Hierarchical Multitenancyhttp://junodesignsummit.sched.org/event/20465cd62e9054d4043dda156da5070e#.U2wYXXKLR_9session of Atlanta design summit. https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Hierarchical_administrative_boundary Please take a look. Thanks, Arvind ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Looks very good. One question: Why hierarchical domains and not Projects. I'm not disagreeing, mind you, just
Re: [openstack-dev] Hierarchical administrative boundary [keystone]
From: Adam Young [mailto:ayo...@redhat.com] Sent: 09 May 2014 04:19 To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Hierarchical administrative boundary [keystone] On 05/08/2014 07:55 PM, Tiwari, Arvind wrote: Hi All, Below is my proposal to address VPC use case using hierarchical administrative boundary. This topic is scheduled in Hierarchical Multitenancy http://junodesignsummit.sched.org/event/20465cd62e9054d4043dda156da5070e#.U 2wYXXKLR_9 session of Atlanta design summit. https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Hierarchical_administrative_boundary Please take a look. Thanks, Arvind ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Looks very good. One question: Why hierarchical domains and not Projects. I'm not disagreeing, mind you, just that I think the Nova team is going for hierarchical Projects. _ Looks good, thank you! But for this to be even more interesting nova (and other services) should be domain aware - e.g. so that a domain admin could have control on all resources which belong to users and projects in that domain. andrea smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Hierarchical administrative boundary [keystone]
Frittoli, I think for other services we could achieve that by modifying the policy.json( add domain admin role and control what the cloud admin can do ) so that domain admin user is able to manage resources belong to users and projects in that domain. 2014-05-09 15:24 GMT+08:00 Frittoli, Andrea (HP Cloud) fritt...@hp.com: *From:* Adam Young [mailto:ayo...@redhat.com] *Sent:* 09 May 2014 04:19 *To:* openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] Hierarchical administrative boundary [keystone] On 05/08/2014 07:55 PM, Tiwari, Arvind wrote: Hi All, Below is my proposal to address VPC use case using hierarchical administrative boundary. This topic is scheduled in Hierarchical Multitenancyhttp://junodesignsummit.sched.org/event/20465cd62e9054d4043dda156da5070e#.U2wYXXKLR_9session of Atlanta design summit. https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Hierarchical_administrative_boundary Please take a look. Thanks, Arvind ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Looks very good. One question: Why hierarchical domains and not Projects. I'm not disagreeing, mind you, just that I think the Nova team is going for hierarchical Projects. *--* Looks good, thank you! But for this to be even more interesting nova (and other services) should be domain aware – e.g. so that a domain admin could have control on all resources which belong to users and projects in that domain. andrea ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Tang Yaguang Canonical Ltd. | www.ubuntu.com | www.canonical.com Mobile: +86 152 1094 6968 gpg key: 0x187F664F ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Hierarchical administrative boundary [keystone]
Hi All, Thanks for looking in to my proposal. Below are my comments and answers to questions which is based on “my personal opinion”. Why domain hierarchy, why not project hierarchy? Because project hierarchy is more impactful and need cross project changes. As per my understanding we all are trying to solve one business use problem, which is “how to support VPC or Reseller” model on OS based cloud deployment. As per problem described in different proposals, it is purely a IAM use case, where different identities (users, admins, reseller ….) has different perception about the system/resources (IAM and non IAM) and they want ability to manage them. Keystone (OS IAM service) abstracts all the IAM complexity from lower level services (Nova, Swift, cinder …) by providing unified integration model (auth token and verification by auth middleware). Lover level services trusts Keystone and allow access (for particular requests) to actual resource based on subject’s roles provided by keystone. Each service supports multi tenancy and tenancy mapping is establish by keystone through projects. If hierarchy enforced at project level then we need to propagate the hierarchy info to all lower level services, where the hierarchy info is not serving any good purpose but just used to map one tenant. Enforcing the hierarchy at project level is more impactful because all services have to change their implementation to consume the notion of hierarchy. Propagating project hierarchy to services would make sense if end resources (VMs, cinder volumes , swift resource ….) does obey the hierarchy based on projects, I think that is not the case. As per definition domains are container for projects, users and groups and maps well with a business entities (ProductionIT, SuperDevShop, WidgetMaster, SPI, reseller .). Using domain to establish hierarchy (as per my design) will abstract the complexity from lower level services. Services don’t have to worry about the domain hierarchy and we can retain the current integration (Keystone project - service Tenant ) model and no need to make big change in different service. Mostly one place change which is Keystone. Services has to be domain aware IMO services (Nova, Swift …) don’t have to be domain aware (Unless I am missing something) as they manage resources for keystone projects. Domain is IAM concept which used to scope IAM resources and not very useful for end services. I think what we are lacking is unique role (role name) per service, having unique role names for each service (IAM, Nova, Swift ….) will resolve the problem mentioned below by Yaguang Tang. Please let me know why services have to be domain aware? Thoughts? Thanks, Arvind Note: IAM Resources – Users, groups, projects … Non IAM resources – VMs, Swift objects, ……. From: Yaguang Tang [mailto:yaguang.t...@canonical.com] Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 4:33 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Hierarchical administrative boundary [keystone] Frittoli, I think for other services we could achieve that by modifying the policy.json( add domain admin role and control what the cloud admin can do ) so that domain admin user is able to manage resources belong to users and projects in that domain. 2014-05-09 15:24 GMT+08:00 Frittoli, Andrea (HP Cloud) fritt...@hp.commailto:fritt...@hp.com: From: Adam Young [mailto:ayo...@redhat.commailto:ayo...@redhat.com] Sent: 09 May 2014 04:19 To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Hierarchical administrative boundary [keystone] On 05/08/2014 07:55 PM, Tiwari, Arvind wrote: Hi All, Below is my proposal to address VPC use case using hierarchical administrative boundary. This topic is scheduled in Hierarchical Multitenancyhttp://junodesignsummit.sched.org/event/20465cd62e9054d4043dda156da5070e#.U2wYXXKLR_9 session of Atlanta design summit. https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Hierarchical_administrative_boundary Please take a look. Thanks, Arvind ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Looks very good. One question: Why hierarchical domains and not Projects. I'm not disagreeing, mind you, just that I think the Nova team is going for hierarchical Projects. Looks good, thank you! But for this to be even more interesting nova (and other services) should be domain aware – e.g. so that a domain admin could have control on all resources which belong to users and projects in that domain. andrea ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
[openstack-dev] Hierarchical administrative boundary [keystone]
Hi All, Below is my proposal to address VPC use case using hierarchical administrative boundary. This topic is scheduled in Hierarchical Multitenancyhttp://junodesignsummit.sched.org/event/20465cd62e9054d4043dda156da5070e#.U2wYXXKLR_9 session of Atlanta design summit. https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Hierarchical_administrative_boundary Please take a look. Thanks, Arvind ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Hierarchical administrative boundary [keystone]
On 05/08/2014 07:55 PM, Tiwari, Arvind wrote: Hi All, Below is my proposal to address VPC use case using hierarchical administrative boundary. This topic is scheduled in Hierarchical Multitenancy http://junodesignsummit.sched.org/event/20465cd62e9054d4043dda156da5070e#.U2wYXXKLR_9 session of Atlanta design summit. https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Hierarchical_administrative_boundary Please take a look. Thanks, Arvind ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Looks very good. One question: Why hierarchical domains and not Projects. I'm not disagreeing, mind you, just that I think the Nova team is going for hierarchical Projects. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
