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

Add network NVA NCC stage #892

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Apr 4, 2023
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions fast/stages/2-networking-a-peering/README.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -72,13 +72,13 @@ As mentioned initially, there are of course other ways to implement internal con

This is a summary of the main options:

- [HA VPN](https://cloud.google.com/network-connectivity/docs/vpn/concepts/topologies) (implemented by [2-networking-vpn](../2-networking-b-vpn/))
- [HA VPN](https://cloud.google.com/network-connectivity/docs/vpn/concepts/topologies) (implemented by [2-networking-b-vpn](../2-networking-b-vpn/))
- Pros: simple compatibility with GCP services that leverage peering internally, better control on routes, avoids peering groups shared quotas and limits
- Cons: additional cost, marginal increase in latency, requires multiple tunnels for full bandwidth
- [VPC Peering](https://cloud.google.com/vpc/docs/vpc-peering) (implemented here)
- Pros: no additional costs, full bandwidth with no configurations, no extra latency, total environment isolation
- Cons: no transitivity (e.g. to GKE masters, Cloud SQL, etc.), no selective exchange of routes, several quotas and limits shared between VPCs in a peering group
- [Multi-NIC appliances](https://cloud.google.com/architecture/best-practices-vpc-design#multi-nic) (implemented by [2-networking-nva](../2-networking-c-nva/))
- [Multi-NIC appliances](https://cloud.google.com/architecture/best-practices-vpc-design#multi-nic) (implemented by [2-networking-c-nva](../2-networking-c-nva/) and [2-networking-e-nva-bgp](../2-networking-e-nva-bgp/))
- Pros: additional security features (e.g. IPS), potentially better integration with on-prem systems by using the same vendor
- Cons: complex HA/failover setup, limited by VM bandwidth and scale, additional costs for VMs and licenses, out of band management of a critical cloud component

Expand Down
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions fast/stages/2-networking-b-vpn/README.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -73,10 +73,10 @@ This is a summary of the main options:
- [HA VPN](https://cloud.google.com/network-connectivity/docs/vpn/concepts/topologies) (implemented here)
- Pros: simple compatibility with GCP services that leverage peering internally, better control on routes, avoids peering groups shared quotas and limits
- Cons: additional cost, marginal increase in latency, requires multiple tunnels for full bandwidth
- [VPC Peering](https://cloud.google.com/vpc/docs/vpc-peering) (implemented by [2-networking-peering](../2-networking-a-peering/))
- [VPC Peering](https://cloud.google.com/vpc/docs/vpc-peering) (implemented by [2-networking-a-peering](../2-networking-a-peering/))
- Pros: no additional costs, full bandwidth with no configurations, no extra latency
- Cons: no transitivity (e.g. to GKE masters, Cloud SQL, etc.), no selective exchange of routes, several quotas and limits shared between VPCs in a peering group
- [Multi-NIC appliances](https://cloud.google.com/architecture/best-practices-vpc-design#multi-nic) (implemented by [2-networking-nva](../2-networking-c-nva/))
- [Multi-NIC appliances](https://cloud.google.com/architecture/best-practices-vpc-design#multi-nic) (implemented by [2-networking-c-nva](../2-networking-c-nva/) and [2-networking-e-nva-bgp](../2-networking-e-nva-bgp/))
- Pros: additional security features (e.g. IPS), potentially better integration with on-prem systems by using the same vendor
- Cons: complex HA/failover setup, limited by VM bandwidth and scale, additional costs for VMs and licenses, out of band management of a critical cloud component

Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion fast/stages/2-networking-c-nva/README.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ This is an options summary:
- [VPC Peering](https://cloud.google.com/vpc/docs/vpc-peering) (used here to connect the trusted landing VPC with the spokes, also used by [02-networking-vpn](../2-networking-b-vpn/))
- Pros: no additional costs, full bandwidth with no configurations, no extra latency
- Cons: no transitivity (e.g. to GKE masters, Cloud SQL, etc.), no selective exchange of routes, several quotas and limits shared between VPCs in a peering group
- [Multi-NIC appliances](https://cloud.google.com/architecture/best-practices-vpc-design#multi-nic) (used here to connect the trusted landing and untrusted VPCs)
- [Multi-NIC appliances](https://cloud.google.com/architecture/best-practices-vpc-design#multi-nic) (used here to connect the trusted landing and untrusted VPCs) and multi-NIC appliances with NCC/BGP support implemented [here](../2-networking-e-nva-bgp/)
- Pros: provides additional security features (e.g. IPS), potentially better integration with on-prem systems by using the same vendor
- Cons: complex HA/failover setup, limited by VM bandwidth and scale, additional costs for VMs and licenses, out of band management of a critical cloud component
- [HA VPN](https://cloud.google.com/network-connectivity/docs/vpn/concepts/topologies)
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion fast/stages/2-networking-d-separate-envs/README.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ While no communication between environment is implemented on this design, that c

- [VPC Peering](https://cloud.google.com/vpc/docs/vpc-peering) - which is not recommended as it would effectively create a full line of sight between workloads belonging to different environments
- [VPN HA](https://cloud.google.com/network-connectivity/docs/vpn/concepts/topologies) tunnels between environments, exchanging a subset of well-defined routes.
- [Multi-NIC appliances](https://cloud.google.com/architecture/best-practices-vpc-design#multi-nic) connecting the different environments, allowing the use of NVAs to enforce networking policies.
- [Multi-NIC appliances](https://cloud.google.com/architecture/best-practices-vpc-design#multi-nic) implemented in [2-networking-c-nva](../2-networking-c-nva) and [2-networking-e-nva-bgp](../2-networking-e-nva-bgp) connecting the different environments, allowing the use of NVAs to enforce networking policies.

The following diagram illustrates the high-level design, and should be used as a reference for the following sections. The final number of subnets, and their IP addressing design will of course depend on customer-specific requirements, and can be easily changed via variables or external data files without having to edit the actual code.

Expand Down
Loading