OpenLMI Firewall Model
Tomáš Smetana
tsmetana at redhat.com
Fri Jan 31 12:21:12 UTC 2014
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:41:47 +0100
Jan Safranek <jsafrane at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/30/2014 03:26 PM, Radek Novacek wrote:
<...>
> > 1) Model FirewallD API closely
> >
> > Using same model as underlying service has one big advantage - it doesn't
> > disrupt local configuration - one can use both remote and local API
> > (command line, GUI) simultaneously, and one big disadvantage - model
> > won't be compatible with other firewall implementations.
<...>
> > Personally, I would go with 1). There is no model that would bring
> > compatibility with other systems, so IMHO it would be best to create
> > model that will be simple and understandable and it's usage won't disrupt
> > other usage (cmdline, gui, ...).
>
> Yes, 1) is my favorite too. IMHO there is no CIM firewall management
> implementation we know about and we want to be compatible with. So let's
> model it around _our_ firewall mgmt tools, which is currently firewalld.
Firewalld is (still) very Fedora-specific tool, whereas a firewall management
is quite universally demanded feature. Even though it's probably a bit
premature consideration: we may make it harder for OpenLMI to become part of
other distributions.
But since the firewall provider is going to be difficult enough anyway I
don't have that strong opinion on reflecting the firewalld API in the
model.
Regards,
--
Tomáš Smetana
Platform Engineering, Red Hat
More information about the openlmi-devel
mailing list