[Interop-dev] Decentralization

[Charles N Wyble]

On 05/09/2012 02:52 AM, Federico Capoano wrote:
> How could we conceive a decentralized database model?

Multi master LDAP? Or rather LDAP front ends to some sort of other
distributed backend (couchdb?)


>
> Here some of our networks (we call them "islands" cos on they map they
> look like isolated networks) will need to access the device via SSH.
> Many people already talk about developing something similar to
> aircontrol in the near future to manage the network.

Also check out

http://rundeck.org/
http://doc36.controltier.org/wiki/Main_Page

that's the software the Free Network Foundation is implementing. (I'm
the co founder and CTO of FNF).

We are extremely interested in interop.

Aircontrol is unfortunately not multi tenant and Ubiquity has no plans
to implement multi tenant features unfortunately.

I tried to deploy

http://www.freeside.biz/freeside/

as an all in one solution. I never did get it working.

For the software FNF has settled on, see

http://freenetworkfoundation.org/?p=528



>
> Of course it wouldn't be smart to put all the passwords of the devices
> of the entire network of an entire country on a single database. We
> need to be able to split it. 

Exactly. LDAP is the way to go. You can replicate on an OU basis. If
it's multi master, you just have each network run it's own master and
use replication for disaster recovery/scalability.

FNF is building an LDAP appliance (via chef recipe).

> Decentralization is also needed so the checks on the devices (SNMP for
> example, but in Slovenia they made a custom way to retrieve stuff via
> HTTP) can be performed in autonomy by every "island".

Right.

I've built numerous large scale monitoring systems. The way to go is
with a checkin based model (devices check in to a NOC). That scales very
well. Outbound checks don't scale.

>
> We mostly all need the nodes to be grouped, nodewatcher call it
> project, some other nodeDBs call it zone or area.
> So that you can have project "Rome", project "Pisa" and project
> "Milan", until here is easy.
> Suppose Pisa wants to be autonomous in managing their nodes, they
> might want to host their database on one of their machines in their
> network and performs monitoring checks in complete autonomy.
> Suppose instead that Milan doesn't want to do so because they don't
> yet have enough expertize or volounteers to do it, so they want to
> stick with the main database until one day they might switch.

Right.

This is something we are trying to figure out for FreedomNOC. If folks
want to use the NOC originally and then take their data to another
system when they are ready.


-- 
Charles N Wyble 
@charlesnw (spam-protected) (818) 280-7059
Building a cost effective, open, secure bit moving platform for tomorrows default free zone.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.funkfeuer.at/pipermail/interop-dev/attachments/20120509/057bdb30/attachment.html>