Bug 2111556
Summary: | [RFE] Layer 2 encryption of control plane using macsec | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat OpenStack | Reporter: | Eric Nothen <enothen> |
Component: | os-net-config | Assignee: | OSP Team <rhos-maint> |
Status: | CLOSED MIGRATED | QA Contact: | Nobody <nobody> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 18.0 (Zed) | CC: | bfournie, bshephar, ekuris, hbrock, hjensas, jslagle, mburns, mtomaska, rhos-maint |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | FutureFeature |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2023-08-22 01:12:15 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Eric Nothen
2022-07-27 13:23:14 UTC
While I would very much like to see this RFE make progress and eventually become a feature, I doubt the request is compatible with the roadmap of RHOSP, in particular regarding the future deployment restrictions (the process described in this BZ relies in configuration performed at the OS of the overcloud nodes, both controllers and computes). Can someone on the OSP team decide if we want to CLOSE WONTFIX this BZ or if it is something that can be worked out as described or in some other way so that I can pass the right message to the customer? Hi Eric, In the future nmstate.io (https://nmstate.io/) is more likely to be used to manage networking, os-net-config is adding support to use that via the python library and OCP and future OSP will most likely support using NMState directly. I.e I think the path forward is to ensure nmstate in RHEL and RHCOS supports configuring MACsec. I would suggest closing this RFE as MIGRATED?, and open a new RFE that is not OSP specific against RHEL nmstate. Regards Harald (In reply to Harald Jensås from comment #2) > Hi Eric, > > In the future nmstate.io (https://nmstate.io/) is more likely to be used to > manage networking, os-net-config is adding support to use that via the > python library and OCP and future OSP will most likely support using NMState > directly. I.e I think the path forward is to ensure nmstate in RHEL and > RHCOS supports configuring MACsec. > > I would suggest closing this RFE as MIGRATED?, and open a new RFE that is > not OSP specific against RHEL nmstate. > > > Regards > Harald Harald, thank you for the information. What I don't understand is how nmstate or even os-net-config would be part of OSP starting on 18, when there are no hosts for the OSP control plane and there's just the containers running on top of RHOCP. I would guess OCP networking would have to deal with the network encryption in the same way it would do for any other workload, thus making this RFE incompatible. Is this a valid assumption? (In reply to Eric Nothen from comment #3) > (In reply to Harald Jensås from comment #2) > > Hi Eric, > > > > In the future nmstate.io (https://nmstate.io/) is more likely to be used to > > manage networking, os-net-config is adding support to use that via the > > python library and OCP and future OSP will most likely support using NMState > > directly. I.e I think the path forward is to ensure nmstate in RHEL and > > RHCOS supports configuring MACsec. > > > > I would suggest closing this RFE as MIGRATED?, and open a new RFE that is > > not OSP specific against RHEL nmstate. > > > > > > Regards > > Harald > > Harald, thank you for the information. What I don't understand is how > nmstate or even os-net-config would be part of OSP starting on 18, when > there are no hosts for the OSP control plane and there's just the containers > running on top of RHOCP. I would guess OCP networking would have to deal > with the network encryption in the same way it would do for any other > workload, thus making this RFE incompatible. Is this a valid assumption? OCP uses nmstate[1] to configure node interfaces. The containers running on OCP uses Multus[2] to attache multiple network interfaces. Multus network attachments use a "master" device on each OCP worker node. The master device can be: physical interface, bridge, bond, vlan, or *MACsec* (if nmstate[1] can configure that). The compute nodes (external dataplane nodes) in OSP18 will run on baremetal RHEL hosts. I imagine, if nmstate supports MACsec * you can configure MACsec on the worker node interfaces and PODs with Multus could use the MACsec interface as the "master" or a bridge/bond on top of MACsec interfaces, i.e you have encrypted traffic on the OCP worker node interfaces used of OSP isolated traffic. * you can also configure MACsec on the external dataplane nodes to get encrypted traffic on these nodes. This might change, but both os-net-config and nmstate are likely to be available for network configuration for the external dataplane nodes. nmstate as the backend is a feature being added to os-net-config - i.e os-net-config supporting MACsec depends on nmstate's support. [1] https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/openshift_container_platform/4.7/html/networking/kubernetes-nmstate [2] https://cloud.redhat.com/blog/how-to-use-kubernetes-services-on-secondary-networks-with-multus-cni Thanks for the clarification. I've now opened BZ#2218137 requesting support of MACSec interfaces in nmstate. I think we could close this BZ. If this is ever supported by nmstate, I will then ask for OSP to support using it, but I'm guessing that's not going to be anytime soon. |