For more information regarding the security incident at F5, the actions we are taking to address it, and our ongoing efforts to protect our customers, click here.

Forum Discussion

Marcel_Denneman's avatar
Marcel_Denneman
Icon for Nimbostratus rankNimbostratus
May 19, 2016

Issue with BIG IP using Cookie Insert functionality.

We have an issue with BIG IP using Cookie Insert functionality.

 

DETAILS:

 

We use loadbalancing on a .NET intranet application. The application makes use of sessions therefore the http request of a user must be sent to the same server. Occasionally http requests are sent to different servers. In the majority of cases the problem arises when the user starts at the beginning of the working day, but it also happens when the user has been working for a while.

 

BIG IP SETUP:

 

We make use of 2 virtual ip addresses. It is a basic configuration. It consists of a virtual server with a default pool. All servers of the application are assigned to this pool. Cookie insert is used for persistency.

 

OTHER INFORMATIE THAT MIGHT BE RELEVANT:

 

  • Browser of the user runs within Citrix
  • Just before the problem is solved (all http request of the user are directed to one server) there is always a switch from one vip tot the other, but this can be a coincidence (When the problem does not arise http requests of the same users are routed to both vip addresses all the time).
  • We have checked that all http requests (including ajax calls) send cookie information.

As far as a I understand Cookie Insert should last as long as de browser is active. I do not see how this problem can occur.

 

Thank you for your help.

 

2 Replies

  • Can you elaborate on how the two VIPs are being used here? Are you using the default HTTP persistence cookie or have you modified the persistence profile in any way?

     

  • As others have stated, there is no limitation for a single VIP, other than the total throughput of the platform. So if you're separating a single application into multiple VIPs on the same box, it almost sounds like the 65k limit is being imposed by SNAT automap?