fuel-dev team mailing list archive

[Andrew Woodward <xarses@xxxxxxxxx>]

AFIK, if we implement ironic as a replacement for cobbler, we will
have Keystone on the fuel-master anyway. Supporting OAuth as an
additional authentication entry would awesome too, but I'm not sure if
there would be much demand over Keystone.

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Lukasz Oles <loles@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There is some misunderstanding here. By using keystone I mean running
> keystone on fuel master node. After all it's just python program. It's used
> by OpenStack as authorization tool but it also can be used as standalone
> software or by different tools completely not connected with OpenStack.
> In future if  want to use LDAP source, keystone already have plugin for it.
>
> Regards
>
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 5:08 PM, David Easter <deaster@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> The other challenge of utilizing Keystone is which one to use.  Fuel
>> enables the deployment of multiple cloud environments from one UI; so when
>> accessing the Fuel Master Node, it would be ambiguous which already deployed
>> Keystone to contact for authentication.  If/When Triple-O is utilized, one
>> could perhaps see designating the Keystone of the undercloud; but that’s
>> more a future requirement.
>>
>> For now, I’d suggest an internal authentication in the immediate short
>> term.  External auth sources can be added in future milestones – most likely
>> an LDAP source that’s outside the deployed clouds and designated by IT.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> - David J. Easter
>>   Director of Product Management, Mirantis
>>
>> From: Jesse Pretorius <jesse.pretorius@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>> <openstack-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 at 7:43 AM
>>
>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>> <openstack-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel-dev] access-control-master-node
>>
>> On 27 May 2014 13:42, Lukasz Oles <loles@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello fuelers,
>>>
>>> we(I and Kamil) would like start discussion about "Enforce access control
>>> for Fuel UI" blueprint
>>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/access-control-master-node.
>>>
>>> First question to David, as he proposed this bp. Do you want to add more
>>> requirements?
>>>
>>> To all. What do you think about using keystone as authorization tool? We
>>> described all pros/cons in the specification.
>>
>>
>> I would suggest both an internal authentication database and the option of
>> plugging additional options in, with keystone being one of them and perhaps
>> something like oauth being another.
>>
>> Keystone may not be available at the time of the build, or accessible from
>> the network that's used for the initial build.
>> _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>> --
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
>> Post to     : fuel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Łukasz Oleś
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
> Post to     : fuel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>



-- 
Andrew
Mirantis
Ceph community