Crowd cloud » History » Version 1
Evil Ham, 06/01/2019 06:45 PM
1 | 1 | Evil Ham | h1. Crowd cloud / Kraut Computing (KC's) |
---|---|---|---|
2 | |||
3 | Following is a first sketch of a design document / analysis of the idea. |
||
4 | |||
5 | h2. Use-cases |
||
6 | |||
7 | h3. Create a VM: |
||
8 | |||
9 | 1. Pick an image |
||
10 | 2. Pick network(s) |
||
11 | 3. Pick machine type |
||
12 | [4. Pick machine type parameters] |
||
13 | [X. Add nic to VM / mod VM] |
||
14 | [Y. Upload images to be used for 1] |
||
15 | [Z. Destroy a VM] |
||
16 | |||
17 | Note: this actually includes most of the life-cycle of a VM. |
||
18 | |||
19 | h2. Components |
||
20 | |||
21 | Following components were identified and commented out, sorted out by subjective order of importance. |
||
22 | |||
23 | These components are thought as being some kind of key/value (JSON seems likely, a priori no NOSQL) with possibilities for opaque customer metadata. |
||
24 | |||
25 | * This key/value + metadata information should be usable for filtering / operations. |
||
26 | * It should be versioned. |
||
27 | |||
28 | h3. VM |
||
29 | Defined as an instance of different settings and multiplicities of the other components |
||
30 | |||
31 | h3. Machine types / Templates |
||
32 | |||
33 | General definition with fixed sets of settings and, in a future stage, parametrised options. |
||
34 | |||
35 | Examples of settings: |
||
36 | * CPU/RAM |
||
37 | * HW Type: arm64 / x86 |
||
38 | * HW / VM |
||
39 | * ... |
||
40 | |||
41 | h3. Network(s) |
||
42 | |||
43 | Layer2-based, allow common use-cases like: static, dhcp, slaac, dhcpv6, custom gateway. |
||
44 | |||
45 | Outside connections: VXLAN |
||
46 | |||
47 | Note: it is quite important that the gateway can be set to another VM / something customised. That way, we can see firewalls and VPNs as special cases to be considered. |
||
48 | |||
49 | h3. Firewall / routing |
||
50 | |||
51 | Thought as: extra VM, that is potentially "invisible" to customers/users and that can: |
||
52 | * deal with basic sets of rules (e.g. allow TCP 80, 22 from $SUBNET, ...) |
||
53 | * ratelimit |
||
54 | * standard ACLs |
||
55 | * geek_mode: on --> "I know what I'm doing, gimme SSH" |
||
56 | |||
57 | Note: By treating this component as a special case of VMs, we simplify things and keep them simple. |
||
58 | |||
59 | h3. Storage |
||
60 | |||
61 | Thought as being out-of-scope to begin with since it can vary so much. We shouldn't rely on a specific implementation. |
||
62 | |||
63 | h3. Images |
||
64 | |||
65 | Basically a rw repository of prepared images. Uploads can be thought as being "raw" to begin with, and we can later add pre-processors that convert them as needed. |
||
66 | |||
67 | h3. Auth |
||
68 | |||
69 | Thought as "not being our problem". |
||
70 | *BUT*: we should have provisions for checkers as follows: |
||
71 | |||
72 | Use some HTTP Auth Header, which should be treated as opaque. |
||
73 | This value of the header, along with the details of the request, should offload Auth to an implementation. |
||
74 | That implementation should reply with the result of such request. |
||
75 | |||
76 | To facilitate adoption / testing, we should implement a few such Authenticators: |
||
77 | * httpasswd file |
||
78 | * ldap |
||
79 | * god-like tokens |
||
80 | * OTP |
||
81 | * limited-scope tokens |
||
82 | Note: by treating the header as something opaque, it can be e.g. base64(user:name) à la HTTP Basic Auth or a uuid or jwt or ... |
||
83 | |||
84 | h2. Things to consider |
||
85 | |||
86 | * The whole thing should aim to be a set of integrated tools that work well together and build on top of standard technologies as much as possible. |
||
87 | * Language of implementation should be consistent, but is open for discussion |
||
88 | * For the JSON metadata, Azure has some interesting tools / Schemas that are worth taking a look into. |
||
89 | * Take a look at ETCD, consul and the like. |