Site Loader

*** Disclaimer: Yes I work for a company that sells products in this category. You are welcome to assume that biases me and disregard this article completely. ***

In my first post on Intent-Driven Architectures ( I attempted to explain the basics of an Intent-Based, or Intent-driven approach. I also explained the use of Intent-Driven architecture in a network perspective. The next piece of building a fully Intent-Driven architecture is analytics. This post will focus there.

Let’s assume you intend to deploy, or have deployed a network, server, storage, etc. system that can consume intent and automate provisioning based on that. How do you identify your policy, or intent for your existing workloads? This is a tough question, and a common place for policy automation, micro-segmentation, and other projects to stall or fail. This is less challenging for that shiny new app your about to deploy (because you’re defining requirements, the policy/intent), it’s all of those existing apps that create the nightmare. How do you automate the infrastructures based on the applications intent, if you don’t know the applications intent?

This is one of the places where analytics becomes a key piece of an intent-driven architecture. You not only need a tool to discover the existing policy, but one that can keep that up-to-date as things change. Was policy implemented correctly on day 0? Is policy still being adhered to on day 5, 50, 500? This is where real-time, or near real-time analytics will come into play for intent-driven architectures.

I’m going to go back to the network and security as my primary example, I’m a one-trick pony that way. These same concepts are applicable to compute, storage and other parts of the architecture. Using the network example the diagram below shows a very generalized version of a typical policy enforcement example in traditional architectures.

Network Policy


Using the example above we see that most policy is pushed to the distribution layer of the network and enforced in the routing, firewalls, load-balancers etc. The other thing to note is that most policy is very broad deny rules. This is what’s known as a blacklist model; anything is allowed unless explicitly denied. This loose level of policy creates large security gaps, and is very rigid and fragile. Additionally, because the intent or policy is described so loosely it’s nearly impossible to use existing infrastructure to discover application intent.

In order to gather intent and automate the policy requirements based on that intent, we need to look at the actual traffic, not the existing rules. We need a granular look at how the applications communicate, this shows us what needs to be allowed, and can be used to gather what should be blocked. It can also show us policies that enforce user-experience, app-priority, traffic-load requirements, etc. Generally this information can be gathered from one of two locations: the operating system/app-stack, or the network, even better would be using both. With this data we can see much more detail. The figure below shows moving from a broad subnet allow rule, to granular knowledge of the TCP/UDP ports that need to be open between specific points.

Old policy vs new policy

These granular rule-sets are definitely not intent, but they are the infrastructures implementation of that intent. This first step of analytics assists with tightening security through micro-segmentation, but also allows agility in that tightened security. For example if you waved a magic wand and it implemented perfect micro-segmentation, that micro-segmentation would quickly start to create problems without analytics. Developers open a new port? A software patch change the connections ports for an app? Downtime, and slow remediation will be unavoidable. With real, or near-real-time analytics the change can be detected immediately, and possibly remediated with a click.

Analytics plays a much bigger role than just policy/intent discovery. The analytics engine of an Intent-based system should also provide visibility into the policy enforcement. Some examples:

  • Was intent correctly deployed, and enforced on day 0?
  • Is intent still being correctly enforced on day 5, 50, 500?
  • What if scenarios (if I change/add policy x, what would be affected.)

All of this should be done by looking at the actual communication between apps or devices, not by looking at infrastructure configuration. For example, I can look at a firewall rule and determine that it is properly configured to segment traffic a, from traffic b. There is nothing in the firewall config to show me that the rest of the network is properly configured to ensure all traffic passes through that firewall. If traffic is somehow bypassing the firewall, all the rules in the world make no difference.

Analytics engines designed for, or as part of, an intent-based networking system provide two critical things: policy discovery, and policy verification. Even with a completely green-filed environment where the policy can be designed fresh, you’ll want analytics to ensure it is deployed correctly and keep you up-to-date on changes.

There are three major components of an intent-driven architecture. I’ve discussed intent-based automation in the previous post, and analytics in this post. I’ll discuss the third piece in the near future: assurance, knowing your system can consume the new intent.

*** Disclaimer: See disclaimer above. ***

Post Author: Joe Onisick (@JoeOnisick)

One Reply to “Intent Driven Architecture Part II: Policy Analytics”

Comments are closed.

Shopping cart

Shipping and discount codes are added at checkout.