Limit connection per VS and redirect user
I am unable to find a working solution and possibly there isn't one - We would like to combine both options: set a connection limit to VS - to say 1000 connections at any given moment (to be used when we are experiencing latency on back end). We would like to redirect every connection that cannot access the site to a maintenance page of sorts. The problem - the connection limit setting resets any connection beyond the limit. I found no way to reference the disconnected(reset) connections in an iRule in order to send the redirect. Attempts to use AI chats of sorts resulted in various unrealistic/non-existent suggestions - so would like something tested and real... At the moment I see no solution. Thanks, Vered
tcl logic in SAML Attribute value field possible?
Hi. We're running BigIP as a SAML IDP. Can I somehow issue tcl logic in a SAML attributes? I'm talking about the Access ›› Federation : SAML Identity Provider : Local IdP Services, editing an object, under SAML Attributes. Based on what's in the memberOf attribute, I need to issue as a value either empty string or "SpecificValue". I am familiar with the %{session.variable} construct, but I don't want to clutter the session with more variables if I can avoid it, as that impacts all sessions using our IDP (30 or so federated services on the same VIP and AP). I tried these two approches: %{ set result {} ; if { [mcget {session.ad.last.attr.memberOf}] contains {| CN=SpecificGroup,OU=Resource groups,OU=Groups,DC=Domain,DC=com |}} { set result {SpecificValue} } ; return $result } expr { set result {} ; if { [mcget {session.ad.last.attr.memberOf}] contains {| CN=SpecificGroup,OU=Resource groups,OU=Groups,DC=Domain,DC=com |}} { set result {SpecificValue} } ; return $result } Expected result: An issued claim with the value "" or "SpecificValue" Actual result: An issued claim with the above code as the value As I mentioned, we've set it up using one VIP that is hosting 30 or so services. We're running 16.1.3.1. They are using the same SSO configuration and there's an iRule triggerd at ACCESS_POLICY_AGENT_EVENT, which does some magic to extract issuer and suchlike, and that helps to make decisions later in the Access Policy. It also populates a few session variables under the session.custom namespace for use in the Access Policy. Additional session variables are being populated in the Access Policy, such as resolved manager and their email address. I have looked briefly at the ASSERT::saml functions, but even if it would be possible to manipulate that way, I wish to keep this set up as stream lined as possible and with as few new "special cases" in an iRule. So while I appreciate pointers along that route as well, I would first of all like to know if there is a way to do it natively in the SAML attribute value field. And if there are any options I have not yet explored here?
Is it possible to select ASM BoT profile from irule?
Hi. . Is it possible to select BoT profile from irule? . Concept is we have different set of IP which need to allow "some" BoT type. That why we can't use whitelist IP in BoT profile because it will allow all BoT type. So We want to use iRule to check if it IP A > use BoT profile which have some exception, but if all other IP > use normally BoT profile. . when HTTP_REQUEST { # Check IP and select BoT profile from that if { [IP::client_addr] eq "A" } { ASM::enable allow_some_bot_profile } else { ASM::enable normally_bot_profile } } ps. I didn't see any document about how to select BoT profile. So I'm not sure if ASM::enable can do that.Best approach to serve maintenance page
Hi, We need to put website under maintenance for about 6 hours. Traffic flow: Clients -->Akamai--->F5-->Backend servers. We have maintenance page hosted in AWS cloud Front. which approach is better? DNS Change – Temporarily point our domain (via CNAME) to CloudFront by adjusting the TTL to 2 minutes. F5 Configuration – Issue a 302 redirect from F5 to CloudFront or forward (reverse proxy) traffic from F5 to CloudFront by modifying the Host header. This keeps the browser on our domain and returns a 200 OK. Main concerns : Avoiding browser/edge caching issues (we can clear Akamai cache if needed). Ensuring a quick rollback after maintenance. Which approach would be best? Could you advise on the correct implementation?
