1. Sonny (Sechang) Son Computer Sciences Department University of Wisconsin-Madison sschang@cs.wisc.edu Dealing with Internet Connectivity in Distributed Computing

2. www.cs.wisc.edu/condor 2 Firewalls & Private Networks › Firewalls  provide cheap and good way to protect networks  becoming headquarters of integrated security systems › Private networks  A solution to IPv4 address shortage problem  Easy network management and easy address planning › We have many firewalls and private networks deployed and will continue to have them in the future

3. www.cs.wisc.edu/condor 3 Problems › Non-universal connectivity › Asymmetric connectivity › Collaboration becomes difficult or impossible › Resources are wasted

4. www.cs.wisc.edu/condor 4 Agenda › Introduction › DPF (Dynamic Port Forwarding) › GCB (Generic Connection Brokering) › eGCB (extended GCB) › Conclusion

5. www.cs.wisc.edu/condor 5 Dynamic Port Forwarding B DPF lib DPF agent A Client Server app NAT X A  XA  B B = socket(); bind(B, ANY); getsockname(B, X ); BIND (B) X X  B X A = socket(); connect(A, X);

6. www.cs.wisc.edu/condor 6 DPF › Basic Idea: On-demand open/close › Supporting Environments  Headnode: Linux NAT box  DPFnized private application  Regular public application

7. www.cs.wisc.edu/condor 7 DPF › DPF can be used with any firewall that allows you to control opening/closing through the following APIs:  open (local, remote, sec)  timeout (sec), where sec may be 0 to close the opening  list › Confirms MIDCOM specification at semantics level

8. www.cs.wisc.edu/condor 8 GCB: socket registration BGCB lib Broker X Server AGCB lib Client B = socket(); bind(B, ANY); getsockname(B, X ) BIND (B) X X

9. www.cs.wisc.edu/condor 9 GCB: passive connection B GCB lib Broker X Server AGCB lib Client connect(A, X ) CONNECT (X) PASSIVE CONTACT (A)

10. www.cs.wisc.edu/condor 10 GCB: relay connection B GCB lib Broker X Server AGCB lib Client connect(A, X ) CONNECT (X) ACTIVE (X) CONTACT (Y) Y

11. www.cs.wisc.edu/condor 11 GCB › Basic Idea: reversing the direction underneath the application › Supporting Environments  No requirement to firewalls  Outbound connections are allowed  Broker is placed either on the edge or outside of the private network

12. www.cs.wisc.edu/condor 12 eGCB (extended GCB) › Support for multiple connection mechanisms  Integration of DPF & GCB › Security to protect the Broker › Extension to DPF  On-demand open/close for outbound connections

13. www.cs.wisc.edu/condor 13 Support for Multiple Methods submit site execution site … … direct connection communication via a punched hole reversed connection communication via relay execution site execution site execution site

14. www.cs.wisc.edu/condor 14 Connection Setup inagent outagentlistenerconnector F/W 1) registration 2) open for outbound 3) negotiation 4) connection setup

15. www.cs.wisc.edu/condor 15 Conclusions › DPF requires administrative and technical control on headnodes but it is fast and scalable › GCB is a little slower than DPF but requires no control on headnodes › The combination of DPF and GCB supports wider range of network setting than any other system › GCB and eGCB are generic mechanisms and can be used any application

16. www.cs.wisc.edu/condor 16 Thank you! Sonny (Sechang) Son Rm# 3387 sschang@cs.wisc.edu

17. www.cs.wisc.edu/condor 17 Ways to handle › Manual opening  Same effect as not having firewall for the range of addresses  Impossible for administrator to know how many and how long addresses must be opened › Deceiving firewalls  War between firewalls and ‘firewall-friendly’ software › We need a cooperative way!

18. www.cs.wisc.edu/condor 18 Security Enforcement inagent outagentlistenerconnector F/W Sec. Req. Security Enforcement