Direct HTTP request from an IP to specific pool members

Not how persistence works with an iRule "pool" command... but am wondering if it is not sending a request to a different pool member because if persistence.

tqu

I'd either combine the 2 irules into 1 or due to the fact that it's the same event then you may want to use a priority to double ensure the irule no.2 fires the http_request event first

priority 100
when HTTP_REQUEST {
switch -glob [HTTP::uri] {
    "/video/*" { pool VIDEO }
    "/audio/*" {pool AUDIO}
    "/text/*" {pool TEXT}
   default {pool default_pool}
    }
}

priority 10
when HTTP_REQUEST {
 if { [HTTP::header "True-Client-IP"] equals "1.2.3.4"} {
log local0. "  Requests from 1.2.3.4" 
  switch -glob [HTTP::uri] {
    "/video/*" { pool VIDEO member video_a}
    "/audio/*" {pool AUDIO member audio_a}
    "/text/*" {pool TEXT member text_a}
   default {pool default_pool member default_a}
     }
}
} 

Hope this helps,

N

tqu

Thought I'd repost back with my 1 iRule for this:

when HTTP_REQUEST {       
 if { [HTTP::header "True-Client-IP"] equals "1.2.3.4"} {    
  log local0. "Requests from 1.2.3.4"
    switch -glob [HTTP::uri] {
    "/video/*" { pool VIDEO member video_a}
    "/audio/*" {pool AUDIO member audio_a}
    "/text/*" {pool TEXT member text_a}
    default {pool default_pool member default_a}
  }
} else {  
  switch -glob [HTTP::uri] {
    "/video/*" { pool VIDEO }
    "/audio/*" {pool AUDIO}
    "/text/*" {pool TEXT}
   default {pool default_pool}
    }
  }
}
 

Also, according to https://devcentral.f5.com/Tutorials/TechTips/tabid/63/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/130/iRules-101--05--Selecting-Pools-Pool-Members-and-Nodes.aspx

You can also choose a specific pool member using the pool command:

pool HTTP_pool member 10.10.10.1 80 

So if you haven't you may bee to add the port number after video_a etc..

Hope this helps,

N

tqu

Apologies, messed up my last post:

Thought I'd repost back with my 1 iRule for this:

when HTTP_REQUEST {       
 if { [HTTP::header "True-Client-IP"] equals "1.2.3.4"} {    
  log local0. "Requests from 1.2.3.4"
    switch -glob [HTTP::uri] {
    "/video/*" { pool VIDEO member video_a}
    "/audio/*" {pool AUDIO member audio_a}
    "/text/*" {pool TEXT member text_a}
    default {pool default_pool member default_a}
  }
} else {  
  switch -glob [HTTP::uri] {
    "/video/*" { pool VIDEO }
    "/audio/*" {pool AUDIO}
    "/text/*" {pool TEXT}
   default {pool default_pool}
    }
  }
}
 

And, according to "https://devcentral.f5.com/Tutorials/TechTips/tabid/63/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/130/iRules-101--05--Selecting-Pools-Pool-Members-and-Nodes.aspx" you need to add the pool member port after the member (pool HTTP_pool member 10.10.10.1 80) e.g. video_a (if you haven't already of course).

Hope this helps,

N

Thank you for your responses.

 

@ Mohamed. the virtual server is cookie persistant. I cannot change it for business reasons. But does it mean persistance can override an iRule?

 

 

@ Nathan, prioritize two rules doesn't solve it either. I haven't tried to put two rules into one yet, do you mean cut rule_2 and paste it to the top of rule_1, and apply only one rule? will it change the flow ?

I don't know about who wins, the pool command in an iRule or the persistence table. You could ask Support.

 

 

Nathan gave you the full combined iRule to use. He also said you need to specify the port number in the "pool" command. Maybe that will fix it?

@Nathan, thank you so much. It looks like your proposed script works!

 

Hi guys, sorry. It still doesn't work, when I test it massively with automated testing. :(

It might be wise to enable OneConnect for the Virtual Server and retest, this should stop persistence and the iRule conflicting.

OneConnect Profile is enabled. but still not working.

 

I'm wondering how soon the updated iRule will be effective? I often test it after 2 minutes, maybe too soon?