Forum Discussion
VIP-targeting-VIP solution using Standard and performance L4 VS
- Sep 12, 2023
In that scenario since the standard virtual server is terminating TLS the traffic still all needs to be handled by the first tmm. The fastest path is to just let it do its job and forward the traffic.
Forwarding it to a second virtual server starts another handshake (w/ TCP) between two tmm’s where the second makes a load balancing decision, so essentially you’re adding unnecessary overhead by forwarding just to have a load balancing decision made at the second virtual server.
This is a good reference article. https://my.f5.com/manage/s/article/K8082#l4
The FPGA is in the dataplane on ingress and egress from the switch (iSeries for example) or is the network interface on rSeries. Therefore if the first tmm terminating TLS has to process the traffic, it's being released down to the FPGA for forwarding on egress already.
i'm asking internally if anyone else has insights
In that scenario since the standard virtual server is terminating TLS the traffic still all needs to be handled by the first tmm. The fastest path is to just let it do its job and forward the traffic.
Forwarding it to a second virtual server starts another handshake (w/ TCP) between two tmm’s where the second makes a load balancing decision, so essentially you’re adding unnecessary overhead by forwarding just to have a load balancing decision made at the second virtual server.
This is a good reference article. https://my.f5.com/manage/s/article/K8082#l4
The FPGA is in the dataplane on ingress and egress from the switch (iSeries for example) or is the network interface on rSeries. Therefore if the first tmm terminating TLS has to process the traffic, it's being released down to the FPGA for forwarding on egress already.
- mregeSep 12, 2023Altocumulus
Brandon_ So essentially, the VIP-targetting-VIP solution would not work from standpoint of bringing CPU utilization down and processing in FPGA when clubbed with performance L4 VS
The usage of VIP-targetting-VIP solution would only work from functionality standpoint of application traffic redirection based on matching condition ?
- Brandon_Sep 12, 2023Employee
mrege correct.
Check out the multi-layer firewall solution lab we've done for Agility. https://clouddocs.f5.com/training/community/firewall/html/class1/module1/module1.html
Because VIP targeting creates a new TCP connection you can terminate TLS and forward the traffic based on some form of L7 information and attach a different L3/4 firewall policy to each secondary virtual. /login and /admin can have different firewall policies for example.
But for say an AWAF policy you can just attach those based on LTM policies similar to the example that JRahm suggested rather than forwarding to a second virtual server.
- mregeSep 12, 2023Altocumulus
Just to provide some background on the post,
We have an application for which we initially utilized performance l4 VS to offload the traffic to ePVA but later we had to encrypt the traffic using TLS.So the traffic load was moved from Performance L4 VS to a standard VS for SSL termination (newer requirement)
As soon as we moved the traffic to Standard VS, We started observing spike in CPU usage as standard VS traffic is processed in CPU under TMM process.
Hence was reviewing the VIP-targetting-VIP solution by JRahm
https://community.f5.com/t5/technical-articles/lightboard-lessons-vip-targeting-vip/ta-p/286897if it can be used to address the similar setup by clubbing Standard VS (processing SSL/TLS) and performance L4 VS (performing Load balancing and source_ip persistence) to reduce CPU load.
Recent Discussions
Related Content
* Getting Started on DevCentral
* Community Guidelines
* Community Terms of Use / EULA
* Community Ranking Explained
* Community Resources
* Contact the DevCentral Team
* Update MFA on account.f5.com