F5 in AWS Part 1 - AWS Networking Basics
Updated for Current Versions and Documentation Part 1 : AWS Networking Basics Part 2: Running BIG-IP in an EC2 Virtual Private Cloud Part 3: Advanced Topologies and More on Highly-Available Services Part 4: Orchestrating BIG-IP Application Services with Open-Source Tools Part 5: Cloud-init, Single-NIC, and Auto Scale Out of BIG-IP in v12 If you work in IT, and you haven’t been living under a rock, then you have likely heard of Amazon Web Services (AWS). There has been a substantial increase in the maturity and stability of the AWS Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2), but you are wondering – can I continue to leverage F5 services in AWS? In this series of blog posts, we will discuss the how and why of running F5 BIG-IP in EC2. In this specific article, we’ll start with the basics of the AWS EC2 and Virtual Private Cloud (VPC). Later in the series, we will discuss some of the considerations associated with running BIG-IP as compute instance in this environment, we’ll outline the best deployment models for your application in EC2, and how these deployment models can be automated using open-source tools. Note: AWS uses the terms "public" and "private" to refer to what F5 Networks has typically referred to as "external" and "internal" respectively. We will use this terms interchangeably. First, what is AWS? If you have read the story, you will know that the EC2 project began with an internal interest at Amazon to move away from messy, multi-tenant networks using VLANs for segregation. Instead, network engineers at Amazon wanted to build an entirely IP-based architecture. This vision morphed into the universe of application services available today. Of course, building multi-tenant, purely L3 networks at massive scale had implications for both security and redundancy (we’ll get to this later). Today, EC2 enables users to run applications and services on top of virtualized network, storage, and compute infrastructure, where hosts are deployed in the form of Amazon Machine Images (AMIs). These AMIs can either be private to the user or launched from the public AWS marketplace. Hosts can be added to elastic load balancing (ELB) groups and associated with publicly accessible IPs to implement a simple horizontal model for availability. AWS became truly relevant for the enterprise with the introduction of the Virtual Private Cloud service. VPCs enabled users to build virtual private networks at the IP layer. These private networks can be connected to on-premise configurations by way of a VPN Gateway, or connected to the internet via an Internet Gateway. When deploying hosts within a VPC, the user has a significant amount of control over how each host is attached to the network. For example, a host can be attached to multiple networks and given several public or private IPs on one or multiple interfaces. Further, users can control many of the security aspects they are used to configuring in an on-premise environment (albeit in a slightly different way), including network ACLs, routing, simple firewalling, DHCP options, etc. Lets talk about these and other important EC2 aspects and try to understand how they affect our application deployment strategy. L2 Restrictions As we mentioned above, one of the design goals of AWS was to remove layer 2 networking. This is a worthy accomplishment but we lose access to certain useful protocols, including ARP (and gratuitious ARP), broadcast and multi-cast groups, 802.1Q tagging. We can no longer use VLANs for some availability models, for quality of service management, or for tenant isolation. Network Interfaces For larger topologies, one of the largest impacts given the removal of 802.1Q protocol support is the number of subnets we can attach to a node in the network. Because in AWS each interface is attached as a layer 3 endpoint, we must add an interface for each subnet. This contrasts with traditional networks, where you can add VLANs to your trunk for each subnet via tagging. Even though we're in a virtual world, the number of virtual network interfaces (or Elastic Network Interfaces (ENIs) in AWS terminology) is also limited according to the EC2 instance size. Together, the limits on number of interfaces and mapping between interface and subnet effectively limit the number of directly connected networks we can attach to a device (like BIG-IP, for example). IP Addressing AWS offers two kinds of globally routable IP address; these are “Public IP Addresses” and “Elastic IP Address”. In the table below, we outlined some of the differences between these two types of IP addresses. You can probably figure out for yourself why we will want to use Elastic IPs with BIG-IP. Like interfaces, AWS limits the number of IPs in several ways, including the number of IPs that can be attached to an interface and the number of elastic IPs per AWS account. Table 1: Differences between Public and Elastic IP Addresses Public IP Elastic IP Released on device termination/disassociation YES NO Assignable to secondary interfaces NO YES Can be associated after launch NO YES Amazon provides more information on public and elastic IP addresses here: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/using-instance-addressing.html#concepts-public-addresses Each interface on an EC2 instance is given a private IP address. This IP address is routable locally through your subnet and assigned from the address range associated with the subnet to which your interface is attached. Multiple private secondary IP addresses can be attached to an interface, and is a useful technique for creating more complex topologies. The number of interfaces and private IPs per interface within an Amazon VPC are listed here: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/using-eni.html#AvailableIpPerENI NAT Instances, Subnets and Routing When creating a VPC using the wizard available in the AWS VPC web portal, several default configurations are possible. One of these configurations is “VPC with Public and Private subnets”. In this configuration, what if the instances on our private subnet wish to access the outside world? Because we cannot attach public or elastic IP address to instances within the private subnet, we must use NAT provided by AWS. Like BIG-IP and other network devices in EC2, the NAT instance will live as a compute node within your VPC. This is good way to allow outbound traffic from your internal servers, but to prevent those servers from receiving inbound traffic. When you create subnets manually or through the VPC wizard, you’ll note that each subnet has an associated routing table. These route tables may be updated to control traffic flow between instances and subnets in your VPC. Regions and Availability Zones We know quite a few number of people who have been confused by the concept of availabilty zones in EC2. To put it clearly, an availabilty zone is a physically isolated datacenter in a region. Regions may contain mulitple availability zones. Availabilty zones run on different networking and storage infrastructure, and depend on seperate power supplies and internet connections. Striping your application deployments across availability zones is a great way to provide redundancy and, perhaps a hot standby, but please note that these are not the same thing. Amazon does not mirror any data between zones on behalf of the customer. While VPCs can span availability zones, subnets may not. To close this blog post, we are fortunate enough to get a video walk through from Vladimir Bojkovic, Solution Architect at F5 Networks. He shows how to create a VPC with internal and external subnets as a practical demonstration of the concepts we discussed above.How to correctly monitor a Database Oracle
we are configuring a monitor health for a Oracle database which has the next configuration parameters: Send String: select * from dual Response: X user:CONSULTA_ANALISTA password:xxxxxxx connection string: PRODM1 = (DESCRIPTION = (ADDRESS_LIST = (ADDRESS = (PROTOCOL = TCP)(HOST = %node_ip%)(PORT = %node_port%)) ) (CONNECT_DATA = (SID = PRODM1) ) ) Row:3 Column:1 alias address:172.20.1.73 alias service port:1527 the monitor doesn't work and the pool member never is seen up, i have looked at the debug of the connection and this is what i see in a portion of it: [root@ltm1:Active:Changes Pending] monitors tail -30 Common_BD_monitor_PDN-Common_BD-1527.log DATABASE=PRODM1 = (DESCRIPTION = (ADDRESS_LIST = (ADDRESS = (PROTOCOL = TCP)(HOST = %node_ip%)(PORT = %node_port%)) ) (CONNECT_DATA = (SID = PRODM1) ) ) DEBUG=yes MON_INST_LOG_NAME=/var/log/monitors/Common_BD_monitor_PDN-Common_BD-1527.log MON_TMPL_NAME=/Common/BD_monitor_PDN NODE_IP=::ffff:172.20.1.73 NODE_PORT=1527 PASSWORD=nc5gf56y RECVCOLUMN=1 RECVROW=3 RECV_I=X SEND=select * from dual USERNAME=CONSULTA_ANALISTA TMOS_RD: 0 (0) Daemon port: 1521 count='0' converts to '0' Command-line PID filename: /var/run/ORACLE__Common_BD_monitor_PDN_::ffff:172.20. 1.73-0_1527.pid PID file /var/run/DBDaemon-0.pid exists. Checking for correctness of PID. DBDaemon on port 1521 says its PID is 19578. PID matches EXCEPTION connecting to DBDaemon: fflush(): Connection reset by peer i have also tried putting all the info directly like this: ********** Debugging session beginning at: Mon Jul 6 17:07:02 2015 Arguments 1-2: ::ffff:172.20.1.73 1527 Environment variables: COUNT=0 DATABASE=PRODM1 = (DESCRIPTION = (ADDRESS_LIST = (ADDRESS = (PROTOCOL = TCP)(HOST = 172.20.1.73)(PORT = 1527)) ) (CONNECT_DATA = (SID = PRODM1) ) ) DEBUG=yes MON_INST_LOG_NAME=/var/log/monitors/Common_BD_monitor_PDN-Common_BD-1527.log MON_TMPL_NAME=/Common/BD_monitor_PDN NODE_IP=::ffff:172.20.1.73 NODE_PORT=1527 PASSWORD=nc5gf56y RECVCOLUMN=1 RECVROW=1 RECV_I=ok SEND=TNSPING 172.20.1.73 1527 USERNAME=CONSULTA_ANALISTA TMOS_RD: 0 (0) Daemon port: 1521 count='0' converts to '0' Command-line PID filename: /var/run/ORACLE__Common_BD_monitor_PDN_::ffff:172.20.1.73-0_1527.pid PID file /var/run/DBDaemon-0.pid exists. Checking for correctness of PID. DBDaemon on port 1521 says its PID is 19578. PID matches Asking daemon to ping remote database. Expected result not received: Database down, see /var/log/DBDaemon.log for details. Database down, see /var/log/DBDaemon.log for details. If i look into /var/log/DBDaemon.log; it isn't updating. It seems that somehow the process is attached to other monitor over port 1521 an maybe that is the origin of the conflicto and fail of Oracle monitoring: [root@ltm1:Active:Changes Pending] monitors ps -fe|grep DB root 19578 1 0 Jun16 ? Ssl 43:33 /usr/lib/jvm/jre-1.7.0-openjd k.x86_64/bin/java -cp /usr/lib/jvm/jre-1.7.0-openjdk.x86_64/lib/rt.jar:/usr/lib/ jvm/jre-1.7.0-openjdk.x86_64/lib/charsets.jar:/usr/share/monitors/mysql-connecto r-java.jar:/usr/share/monitors/DB_monitor.jar:/usr/share/monitors/sqljdbc4.jar:/ usr/share/monitors/ojdbc6.jar:/usr/share/monitors/postgresql-8.3-604.jdbc3.jar - Xmx64m com.f5.eav.DBDaemon 1521 19578 0
Connections vs sessions
Hi all This is my first post so apologies if I'm breaking any standards. I'm having trouble figuring out the difference between connections and sessions. No matter how much I Google this, I'm not finding a simple answer. Let me phrase it this way...if you read the article on "LTM: Dueling Timeouts" (https://devcentral.f5.com/articles/ltm-dueling-timeouts), it says: "Persistence timeouts are actually idle timeouts for a session, rather than a single connection." Unfortunately that statement does not tell us anything meaningful unless the definition of a connection and session is clarified. Or to put it another way, if you consult the F5 V11 configuration guide as it relates to session persistence profiles (http://support.f5.com/kb/en-us/products/big-ip_ltm/manuals/product/ltm-concepts-11-1-0/ltm_persist_profiles.html), it says: "The primary reason for tracking and storing session data is to ensure that client requests are directed to the same pool member throughout the life of a session or during subsequent sessions." So my question here would be, what factors influence whether ongoing HTTP GET requests (as an example) constitute a single session, or subsequent sessions? I'd really appreciate somebody's help here as I know this is a fundamentally basic concept but I'm unable to find a definitive answer.
Back to Basics: Health Monitors and Load Balancing
#webperf #ado Because every connection counts One of the truisms of architecting highly available systems is that you never, ever want to load balance a request to a system that is down. Therefore, some sort of health (status) monitoring is required. For applications, that means not just pinging the network interface or opening a TCP connection, it means querying the application and verifying that the response is valid. This, obviously, requires the application to respond. And respond often. Best practices suggest determining availability every 5 seconds or so. That means every X seconds the load balancing service is going to open up a connection to the application and make a request. Just like a user would do. That adds load to the application. It consumes network, transport, application and (possibly) database resources. Resources that cannot be used to service customers. While the impact on a single application may appear trivial, it's not. Remember, as load increases performance decreases. And no matter how trivial it may appear, health monitoring is adding load to what may be an already heavily loaded application. But Lori, you may be thinking, you expound on the importance of monitoring and visibility all the time! Are you saying we shouldn't be monitoring applications? Nope, not at all. Visibility is paramount, providing the actionable data necessary to enable highly dynamic, automated operations such as elasticity. Visibility through health-monitoring is a critical means of ensuring availability at both the local and global level. What we may need to do, however, is move from active to passive monitoring. PASSIVE MONITORING Passive monitoring, as the modifier suggests, is not an active process. The Load balancer does not open up connections nor query an application itself. Instead, it snoops on responses being returned to clients and from that infers the current status of the application. For example, if a request for content results in an HTTP error message, the load balancer can determine whether or not the application is available and capable of processing subsequent requests. If the load balancer is a BIG-IP, it can mark the service as "down" and invoke an active monitor to probe the application status as well as retrying the request to another available instance – insuring end-users do not see an error. Passive (inband) monitors are not binary. That is, they aren't simple "on" or "off" based on HTTP status codes. Such monitors can be configured to track the number of failures and evaluate failure rates against a configurable failure interval. When such thresholds are exceeded, the application can then be marked as "down". Passive monitors aren't restricted to availability status, either. They can also monitor for performance (response time). Failure to meet response time expectations results in a failure, and the application continues to be watched for subsequent failures. Passive monitors are, like most inline/inband technologies, transparent. They quietly monitor traffic and act upon that traffic without adding overhead to the process. Passive monitoring gives operations the visibility necessary to enable predictable performance and to meet or exceed user expectations with respect to uptime, without negatively impacting performance or capacity of the applications it is monitoring.The Limits of Cloud: Gratuitous ARP and Failover
#Cloud is great at many things. At other things, not so much. Understanding the limitations of cloud will better enable a successful migration strategy. One of the truisms of technology is that takes a few years of adoption before folks really start figuring out what it excels at – and conversely what it doesn't. That's generally because early adoption is focused on lab-style experimentation that rarely extends beyond basic needs. It's when adoption reaches critical mass and folks start trying to use the technology to implement more advanced architectures that the "gotchas" start to be discovered. Cloud is no exception. A few of the things we've learned over the past years of adoption is that cloud is always on, it's simple to manage, and it makes applications and infrastructure services easy to scale. Some of the things we're learning now is that cloud isn't so great at supporting application mobility, monitoring of deployed services and at providing advanced networking capabilities. The reason that last part is so important is that a variety of enterprise-class capabilities we've come to rely upon are ultimately enabled by some of the advanced networking techniques cloud simply does not support. Take gratuitous ARP, for example. Most cloud providers do not allow or support this feature which ultimately means an inability to take advantage of higher-level functions traditionally taken for granted in the enterprise – like failover. GRATUITOUS ARP and ITS IMPLICATIONS For those unfamiliar with gratuitous ARP let's get you familiar with it quickly. A gratuitous ARP is an unsolicited ARP request made by a network element (host, switch, device, etc… ) to resolve its own IP address. The source and destination IP address are identical to the source IP address assigned to the network element. The destination MAC is a broadcast address. Gratuitous ARP is used for a variety of reasons. For example, if there is an ARP reply to the request, it means there exists an IP conflict. When a system first boots up, it will often send a gratuitous ARP to indicate it is "up" and available. And finally, it is used as the basis for load balancing failover. To ensure availability of load balancing services, two load balancers will share an IP address (often referred to as a floating IP). Upstream devices recognize the "primary" device by means of a simple ARP entry associating the floating IP with the active device. If the active device fails, the secondary immediately notices (due to heartbeat monitoring between the two) and will send out a gratuitous ARP indicating it is now associated with the IP address and won't the rest of the network please send subsequent traffic to it rather than the failed primary. VRRP and HSRP may also use gratuitous ARP to implement router failover. Most cloud environments do not allow broadcast traffic of this nature. After all, it's practically guaranteed that you are sharing a network segment with other tenants, and thus broadcasting traffic could certainly disrupt other tenant's traffic. Additionally, as security minded folks will be eager to remind us, it is fairly well-established that the default for accepting gratuitous ARPs on the network should be "don't do it". The astute observer will realize the reason for this; there is no security, no ability to verify, no authentication, nothing. A network element configured to accept gratuitous ARPs does so at the risk of being tricked into trusting, explicitly, every gratuitous ARP – even those that may be attempting to fool the network into believing it is a device it is not supposed to be. That, in essence, is ARP poisoning, and it's one of the security risks associated with the use of gratuitous ARP. Granted, someone needs to be physically on the network to pull this off, but in a cloud environment that's not nearly as difficult as it might be on a locked down corporate network. Gratuitous ARP can further be used to execute denial of service, man in the middle and MAC flooding attacks. None of which have particularly pleasant outcomes, especially in a cloud environment where such attacks would be against shared infrastructure, potentially impacting many tenants. Thus cloud providers are understandably leery about allowing network elements to willy-nilly announce their own IP addresses. That said, most enterprise-class network elements have implemented protections against these attacks precisely because of the reliance on gratuitous ARP for various infrastructure services. Most of these protections use a technique that will tentatively accept a gratuitous ARP, but not enter it in its ARP cache unless it has a valid IP-to-MAC mapping, as defined by the device configuration. Validation can take the form of matching against DHCP-assigned addresses or existence in a trusted database. Obviously these techniques would put an undue burden on a cloud provider's network given that any IP address on a network segment might be assigned to a very large set of MAC addresses. Simply put, gratuitous ARP is not cloud-friendly, and thus it is you will be hard pressed to find a cloud provider that supports it. What does that mean? That means, ultimately, that failover mechanisms in the cloud cannot be based on traditional techniques unless a means to replicate gratuitous ARP functionality without its negative implications can be designed. Which means, unfortunately, that traditional failover architectures – even using enterprise-class load balancers in cloud environments – cannot really be implemented today. What that means for IT preparing to migrate business critical applications and services to cloud environments is a careful review of their requirements and of the cloud environment's capabilities to determine whether availability and uptime goals can – or cannot – be met using a combination of cloud and traditional load balancing services.IP::addr and IPv6
Did you know that all address internal to tmm are kept in IPv6 format? If you’ve written external monitors, I’m guessing you knew this. In the external monitors, for IPv4 networks the IPv6 “header” is removed with the line: IP=`echo $1 | sed 's/::ffff://'` IPv4 address are stored in what’s called “IPv4-mapped” format. An IPv4-mapped address has its first 80 bits set to zero and the next 16 set to one, followed by the 32 bits of the IPv4 address. The prefix looks like this: 0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:ffff: (abbreviated as ::ffff:, which looks strickingly simliar—ok, identical—to the pattern stripped above) Notation of the IPv4 section of the IPv4-formatted address vary in implementations between ::ffff:192.168.1.1 and ::ffff:c0a8:c8c8, but only the latter notation (in hex) is supported. If you need the decimal version, you can extract it like so: % puts $x ::ffff:c0a8:c8c8 % if { [string range $x 0 6] == "::ffff:" } { scan [string range $x 7 end] "%2x%2x:%2x%2x" ip1 ip2 ip3 ip4 set ipv4addr "$ip1.$ip2.$ip3.$ip4" } 192.168.200.200 Address Comparisons The text format is not what controls whether the IP::addr command (nor the class command) does an IPv4 or IPv6 comparison. Whether or not the IP address is IPv4-mapped is what controls the comparison. The text format merely controls how the text is then translated into the internal IPv6 format (ie: whether it becomes a IPv4-mapped address or not). Normally, this is not an issue, however, if you are trying to compare an IPv6 address against an IPv4 address, then you really need to understand this mapping business. Also, it is not recommended to use 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 for testing whether something is IPv4 versus IPv6 as that is not really valid a IP address—using the 0.0.0.0 mask (technically the same as /0) is a loophole and ultimately, what you are doing is loading the equivalent form of a IPv4-mapped mask. Rather, you should just use the following to test whether it is an IPv4-mapped address: if { [IP::addr $IP1 equals ::ffff:0000:0000/96] } { log local0. “Yep, that’s an IPv4 address” } These notes are covered in the IP::addr wiki entry. Any updates to the command and/or supporting notes will exist there, so keep the links handy. Related Articles F5 Friday: 'IPv4 and IPv6 Can Coexist' or 'How to eat your cake ... Service Provider Series: Managing the ipv6 Migration IPv6 and the End of the World No More IPv4. You do have your IPv6 plan running now, right ... Question about IPv6 - BIGIP - DevCentral - F5 DevCentral ... Insert IPv6 address into header - DevCentral - F5 DevCentral ... Business Case for IPv6 - DevCentral - F5 DevCentral > Community ... We're sorry. The IPv4 address you are trying to reach has been ... Don MacVittie - F5 BIG-IP IPv6 Gateway ModuleBIG-IP Configuration Conversion Scripts
Kirk Bauer, John Alam, and Pete White created a handful of perl and/or python scripts aimed at easing your migration from some of the “other guys” to BIG-IP.While they aren’t going to map every nook and cranny of the configurations to a BIG-IP feature, they will get you well along the way, taking out as much of the human error element as possible.Links to the codeshare articles below. Cisco ACE (perl) Cisco ACE via tmsh (perl) Cisco ACE (python) Cisco CSS (perl) Cisco CSS via tmsh (perl) Cisco CSM (perl) Citrix Netscaler (perl) Radware via tmsh (perl) Radware (python)Implementing Client Subnet in DNS Requests
Update 2018-07-14: Starting with BIG-IP DNS 14.0 Client Subnet is available as a checkbox feature:https://devcentral.f5.com/s/articles/using-client-subnet-in-dns-requests-31948 Original Article: Sending end-users to the right data center Using an iRule and edns-client-subnet (ECS) we can improve the accuracy of F5 GTM’s topology load balancing. In a global world you expect to send your end-users to the closest regional data center. An end-user request from Tokyo will be sent to a data center in Tokyo and an end-user in California will be sent to a data center in California. GTM does this using topology load balancing, but centralized DNS resolvers like Google DNS or OpenDNS can interfere with GTM’s ability to provide accurate topology load balancing. An end-user in Tokyo, Japan using OpenDNS will be sent to a data center in California instead of Tokyo. The end-user is sent to the wrong data center because the original DNS request appeared to originate from an OpenDNS server in California instead of the end-user’s location in Tokyo. Fortunately there is a draft protocol to address these challenges using a protocol EDNS Client Subnet (ECS). ECS enables DNS servers to provide more accurate topology information that can improve end-user experience. ECS is similar to X-Forwarded-For headers used with HTTP. X-Forwarded-For header is a technique for preserving the original client IP address for cases when the BIG-IP translates the source IP address of HTTP traffic. ECS injects information about the original client IP subnet into the DNS request. Today, with version 11.5.x and 11.6.0 the BIG-IP we can use an iRule to implement a solution that is interoperable with the current draft protocol for testing and evaluation. Implementing the protocol After reading through the draft specification you can see that ECS requires the ability to interpret ECS information that is sent with the DNS query as well as respond with an appropriate response that indicates to the DNS resolver that the DNS server supports ECS. Fortunately we have two LTM iRule events “DNS_REQUEST” and “DNS_RESPONSE” that allows us to receive and respond with the appropriate messages. We can leverage the GTM DNS_REQUEST iRule event to capture the information and the whereis command to act on the information. A graphical representation of the solution The iRule code can be found on the codeshare. Here’s a sample output of the results of using the iRule with OpenDNS’s servers (requires a request to OpenDNS support to enable your DNS servers to receive ECS from OpenDNS) and Google DNS. Rule /Common/ecs_topology_www : LDNS LOC: 208.69.37.XXX NA US California {} Rule /Common/ecs_topology_www : ECS LOC: 210.226.XXX.0 AS JP Tokyo {} Rule /Common/ecs_topology_www : Asia ECS iRule using OpenDNS Rule /Common/ecs_topology_www : LDNS LOC: 173.194.93.XXX NA US California {} Rule /Common/ecs_topology_www : ECS LOC: 210.226.XXX.0 AS JP Tokyo {} Rule /Common/ecs_topology_www : Asia ECS iRule using Google DNS Implementing a draft now ECS is still a draft protocol and may change over time. Using a F5 iRule we can interoperate with the protocol to provide better granularity for topology load balancing. The example above was done in a lab environment to demonstrate what’s possible. Improvements that could be made to the example include: More accurate implementation of the draft (it works, but I didn’t read the draft that closely) Limiting ECS responses to Google/OpenDNS/ECS DNS resolvers Implementing a ECS resolver (possible?) Using an iRule we can solve today’s problem using a draft protocol!The Full-Proxy Data Center Architecture
Why a full-proxy architecture is important to both infrastructure and data centers. In the early days of load balancing and application delivery there was a lot of confusion about proxy-based architectures and in particular the definition of a full-proxy architecture. Understanding what a full-proxy is will be increasingly important as we continue to re-architect the data center to support a more mobile, virtualized infrastructure in the quest to realize IT as a Service. THE FULL-PROXY PLATFORM The reason there is a distinction made between “proxy” and “full-proxy” stems from the handling of connections as they flow through the device. All proxies sit between two entities – in the Internet age almost always “client” and “server” – and mediate connections. While all full-proxies are proxies, the converse is not true. Not all proxies are full-proxies and it is this distinction that needs to be made when making decisions that will impact the data center architecture. A full-proxy maintains two separate session tables – one on the client-side, one on the server-side. There is effectively an “air gap” isolation layer between the two internal to the proxy, one that enables focused profiles to be applied specifically to address issues peculiar to each “side” of the proxy. Clients often experience higher latency because of lower bandwidth connections while the servers are generally low latency because they’re connected via a high-speed LAN. The optimizations and acceleration techniques used on the client side are far different than those on the LAN side because the issues that give rise to performance and availability challenges are vastly different. A full-proxy, with separate connection handling on either side of the “air gap”, can address these challenges. A proxy, which may be a full-proxy but more often than not simply uses a buffer-and-stitch methodology to perform connection management, cannot optimally do so. A typical proxy buffers a connection, often through the TCP handshake process and potentially into the first few packets of application data, but then “stitches” a connection to a given server on the back-end using either layer 4 or layer 7 data, perhaps both. The connection is a single flow from end-to-end and must choose which characteristics of the connection to focus on – client or server – because it cannot simultaneously optimize for both. The second advantage of a full-proxy is its ability to perform more tasks on the data being exchanged over the connection as it is flowing through the component. Because specific action must be taken to “match up” the connection as its flowing through the full-proxy, the component can inspect, manipulate, and otherwise modify the data before sending it on its way on the server-side. This is what enables termination of SSL, enforcement of security policies, and performance-related services to be applied on a per-client, per-application basis. This capability translates to broader usage in data center architecture by enabling the implementation of an application delivery tier in which operational risk can be addressed through the enforcement of various policies. In effect, we’re created a full-proxy data center architecture in which the application delivery tier as a whole serves as the “full proxy” that mediates between the clients and the applications. THE FULL-PROXY DATA CENTER ARCHITECTURE A full-proxy data center architecture installs a digital "air gap” between the client and applications by serving as the aggregation (and conversely disaggregation) point for services. Because all communication is funneled through virtualized applications and services at the application delivery tier, it serves as a strategic point of control at which delivery policies addressing operational risk (performance, availability, security) can be enforced. A full-proxy data center architecture further has the advantage of isolating end-users from the volatility inherent in highly virtualized and dynamic environments such as cloud computing . It enables solutions such as those used to overcome limitations with virtualization technology, such as those encountered with pod-architectural constraints in VMware View deployments. Traditional access management technologies, for example, are tightly coupled to host names and IP addresses. In a highly virtualized or cloud computing environment, this constraint may spell disaster for either performance or ability to function, or both. By implementing access management in the application delivery tier – on a full-proxy device – volatility is managed through virtualization of the resources, allowing the application delivery controller to worry about details such as IP address and VLAN segments, freeing the access management solution to concern itself with determining whether this user on this device from that location is allowed to access a given resource. Basically, we’re taking the concept of a full-proxy and expanded it outward to the architecture. Inserting an “application delivery tier” allows for an agile, flexible architecture more supportive of the rapid changes today’s IT organizations must deal with. Such a tier also provides an effective means to combat modern attacks. Because of its ability to isolate applications, services, and even infrastructure resources, an application delivery tier improves an organizations’ capability to withstand the onslaught of a concerted DDoS attack. The magnitude of difference between the connection capacity of an application delivery controller and most infrastructure (and all servers) gives the entire architecture a higher resiliency in the face of overwhelming connections. This ensures better availability and, when coupled with virtual infrastructure that can scale on-demand when necessary, can also maintain performance levels required by business concerns. A full-proxy data center architecture is an invaluable asset to IT organizations in meeting the challenges of volatility both inside and outside the data center. Related blogs & articles: The Concise Guide to Proxies At the Intersection of Cloud and Control… Cloud Computing and the Truth About SLAs IT Services: Creating Commodities out of Complexity What is a Strategic Point of Control Anyway? The Battle of Economy of Scale versus Control and Flexibility F5 Friday: When Firewalls Fail… F5 Friday: Platform versus Product
