Forum Discussion
brent112_11716
Nimbostratus
NimbostratusExchange 2010 and BigIP v11.1??
Does anyone have a successful setup with BigIP V11.1 and Exchange 2010 (with multiple front end CAS servers)? We have had alot of issues since setting it up. The main issue is authentication prompts that Outlook users get, and when a server is rebooted that a users Outlook is pointed to, instead of failing over to another server nicely they get a nice authentication prompt from within Outlook. I have had a ticket opened with F5 since Mid December and while they have worked hard to help figure this out, the issue is still occurring. There is also an issue of sometimes Outlook clients getting a "server not available" when loading Outlook. The only solution is to reboot the computer and then everything works fine. If a computer is manually pointed (via host file) to an Exchange server directly there are 0 issues, only when they go through the F5 do we get these problems.
I was wondering if someone had a similar setup that is working without issue so I could compare some settings and such to see if I can get this working.
Thank's
Brent
brent112_11716Yeah, the last engineer on the case gave it to me to try, it didnt fix any issues though.Thanks for looking into it.
- Brent,
I think I may have replicated the issue in my environment, at least the behavior seems similar. Under the properties of your combined Exchange 2010 https virtual server, can you set the fallback persistence profile to this:
EXCHANGE_2010_SP2_VS_source_address_persistence_profile
The default persistence profile should be cookie.
Let me know if that helps.
Mike - To clarify, the default persistence profile should be the cookie profile created by the iApp...
- brent112_11716When i attempt to do that I get this error. ( I am trying this on the test VS i created first as to not affect production)
01070372:3: Persistence mode (Cookie) called out in rule (/Common/EXCHANGE_2010_SP2_VS_TEST.app/EXCHANGE_2010_SP2_VS_TEST_combined_vs_persist_iRule) requires a corresponding persistence profile for virtual server (/Common/EXCHANGE_2010_SP2_VS_TEST.app/EXCHANGE_2010_SP2_VS_TEST_combined_https). - For that virtual the default persistence profile should be EXCHANGE_2010_SP2_VS_TEST_cookie_persistence_profile
and the fallback persistence profile should be EXCHANGE_2010_SP2_VS_TEST_source_address_persistence_profile
You shouldn't get that error unless you try to remove the cookie profile from the virtual server altogether. - brent112_11716ah, sorry. It was too early in the morning when i read your last post. I have set the FAILBACK to source_address_persistence_profile.
What do you expect this to fix, the authentication prompt issues?
Brent
- What I found in testing is that Exchange wants the EWS connection to go to the same CAS server as the RPC connection. If they connected to different servers, I had authentication problems. The source persistence profile is set to "match across services", which should send all connections from that IP to the same node (even if you're using two different pools, it'll work as long as the pool members are the same in both).
You can see which nodes you're persisting to by logging into the BIG-IP, then typing:
tmsh
ltm
show persistence persist-records all-properties - brent112_11716
This is our production environment (without the setting you told me to make and IP's changed for security) would something like this below in the persistent record cause issues? Where the users is pointed to multiple servers? (172.10.x.156 and 172.10.x.164)
172.5.x.115 1 0 Source Address Affinity EXCHANGE_2010_SP2_VS_rpc EXCHANGE_2010_SP2_VS_rpc_pool 172.10.x.156:135 63 seconds
172.5.x.115 1 0 Source Address Affinity EXCHANGE_2010_SP2_VS_combined_https EXCHANGE_2010_SP2_VS_owa_pool 172.10.x.164:443 27 seconds
172.5.x.115 1 1 Source Address Affinity EXCHANGE_2010_SP2_VS_combined_https EXCHANGE_2010_SP2_VS_owa_pool 172.10.x.164:443 32 seconds - Check your inbox, I just PM'd you.
TechgeeegHi Brent,
Are you currently using Analytic profile on ur combined virtual server????? IF yes remove it and then try out the things. I dont have much to prove logically but the insert cookie persistence that is avaliable on F5 LTM I feel have a bug . Where ever it is used it seems to be causing one issue or the other.
Regards
