Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update requirements for INFRA nodes #111

Open
mkowalski opened this issue Oct 25, 2019 · 3 comments
Open

Update requirements for INFRA nodes #111

mkowalski opened this issue Oct 25, 2019 · 3 comments

Comments

@mkowalski
Copy link
Contributor

mkowalski commented Oct 25, 2019

Background

As an operator I want to clearly define a minimum set of requirements to be met before a node can become part of SCIONLab as infrastructure node.

State

The current version of scion-tutorials/content/join_infrastructure.md is highly outdated mainly (but not only) in parts about operating system and firewall rules.

[A] There also statements which we don't want to have, like you can start as small as dedicating only a simple commodity PC. In this case user should be running an user AS as this is highly probable a commodity PC will be an old&cheap machine under someone's desk without any operational support at all.

[B] Currently we require minimum of 4 GB of RAM. This is not enough in many cases and causes us to run at the edge what also increases operational costs in case strange things happen. Nowadays a reasonable requirement should be 8 GB of ram and at least 4 vCPUs.

[C] A model operating system for the infrastructure node is currently Ubuntu 18.04.

[D] border router node(s) must have a public static IP should be extended to a requirement where all the nodes have static IPs. Otherwise that would mean for intra-AS communication we need to deal with dynamic IPs what sounds crazy.

[E] The sentence it may be enough if a firewall allows return traffic to the same port sounds very vague. For people dealing with firewall configurations it's more than enough to be told something like "incoming traffic from X to Y over port Z"

[F] Address ranges for management SSH traffic are very incorrect.

[G] The last option in we can also operate the connections over a tunnel, e.g. OpenVPN, Wireguard or SSH tunnels should be removed. I cannot imagine operating anything more than "debug & very temporary test" via SSH tunnel as this thing is not properly deployable, monitorable nor operatable.

Further improvements

As a further enhancement I want to provide a "hardened configuration" in case there is a business requirement to run in a harsh/strict environment, given the value is higher than investment needed.

@mkowalski
Copy link
Contributor Author

I guess some cooperation/assistance via @AnotherKamila would be helpful here

@AnotherKamila
Copy link
Contributor

@mkowalski Ack, added to the end of my queue ;-)

@AnotherKamila AnotherKamila self-assigned this Oct 29, 2019
mkowalski added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 30, 2019
mkowalski added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 31, 2019
* Closes: #120
* Closes: #119
* Closes: #118
* Closes: #116
* Closes: #114
* Closes: #115
* Closes: #117
* Partially-implements: #111
@mkowalski
Copy link
Contributor Author

A somehow relevant reference could be https://named-data.net/ndn-testbed/policies-connecting-nodes-ndn-testbed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants