ltm
18530 TopicsSSL Forward Proxy, iRules and Client Hello
Hi all, I am seeing odd behaviour using SSL fwd proxy (SSLO): My intention is to use the client hello (SNI) to influence SSSL profile selection. I have 2 SSSL profiles setup, let call them A and B For trusted connections (i.e. certs issuers in SSSL CA bundle) is am unable to extract the SNI from the initial CH, using the CLIENTSSL_CLIENTHELLO event and [SSL::extensions -type 0]. These are send to profile A based on SNI. I have pcaps showing the CH incoming to the F5. I assume this may have something to do with the 'verified handshake' functionality. It appears the test client browser keeps attempting connection and I see inconsistent results (some connections are reset, some succeed). In irule logs its apparent the SNI does eventually become available in the CLIENTSSL_CLIENTHELLO event. For untrusted/self signed etc this doesn't appear to happen, these are sent to Profile B (identical to A for testing purposes) so my assumption is the F5 is doing some kind of SNI processing (compare to CN's in trust store?) and then connecting to the server for 'verified handshake' before releasing the SNI into the CLIENTSSL_CLIENTHELLO event? I have seen an iRule that effectively disables SSL then parses the raw client hello for SNI, I expect this may work as it would intercept the raw CH so the F5 cannot interfere or do any server-side preamble, but I'd rather do this within the realms of defined events if possible... :-) Any suggestions or comments welcome! thanks137Views0likes2Commentssyslog over tcp and define management IP as source
Hello I used following method to add syslog server ip with tcp port. can anyone help me how to define source IP (management IP) to send logs to syslog server. https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K13080 Configuring the BIG-IP system to log to the remote syslog server using TCP protocol Impact of procedure: Performing the following procedure should not have a negative impact on your system. 1.Log in to tmsh by typing the following command: tmsh 2.To log to the remote syslog server using the TCP protocol, use the following command syntax: modify /sys syslog include "destination remote_server {tcp(\"\" port (514));};filter f_alllogs {level (debug...emerg);};log source(local);filter(f_alllogs);destination(remote_server);};" For example, to log to the remote syslog server 172.28.68.42, type the following command: modify /sys syslog include "destination remote_server {tcp(\"172.28.68.42/" port (514));};filter f_alllogs {level (debug...emerg);};log {source(local);filter(f_alllogs);destination(remote_server);};"2.1KViews0likes4CommentsRecommendation for Adv. Lab
Hi Everyone, I'm relatively new to F5 BIG-IP and want to improve my hands-on skills. I have a chance to build a good lab, but I'm struggling to find real-world use cases and troubleshooting scenarios. Currently, I can only run basic tests with DVWA, but I want to simulate a complex environment. Could you recommend any resources (videos, docs, or lab guides or anything can help) specifically for LTM, AWAF, DNS and APM, use-case scenarios, troubleshooting exercises, architectures etc. Any guidance to help me bridge the gap between basic setup and professional practice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!383Views0likes8CommentsConnection Rate Limit with log output
Hello, I have a question about the "Connection Rate Limit". I recognize that this function is virtual server becomes don't receive new connection after exceeding this threshold. However, I'd rather not block new connection because I may block connection from normal user other than malicious user's one. (I want to output error message only) Q.Do you have any suggestions? (I think it can be achieved by using iRule) Best regards,663Views0likes3CommentsGRE Tunnel Issue
Has anyone run into an issue with GRE tunnels on a BIG-IP? I have a few setup running into a TGW in AWS and something seems to break them. Config change, Module change, ?? I haven't been able to pin down an exact trigger. Sometimes I could failover and have the tunnels on the other HA member work fine and failing back would results in tunnels going down again. (The tunnels are unique to each BIG-IP) They start responding with ICMP protocol 47 unavailable. Once this happens a reboot doesn't seem to fix it. If I tear down the BIG-IP and rebuild it, I can keep them working again for X amount of time before the cycle repeats. Self-IPs are open to the protocol, also tried allow all for a bit. No NATs involved with underlay IPs.Solved224Views0likes3Commentswhich virtual server will be hit?
Hi, we created following virtual forwarding server for internet traffics on LTM. virtual server : internet-vs source ip: 192.12.0.1 ( downstream firewall external interface IP) destination: 0.0.0.0/0 For the return traffics of this VS, do we need to create another virtual server? If we create a new virtual forwarding server like below, will the return traffics of VS "internet-vs" hit this VS "Test-VS"? virtual server: Test-VS source: 0.0.0.0/0 destination: 192.12.0.1 Can someone please advise? Thanks in advance!264Views0likes2CommentsAbout vlangroup traffic
Hello Expert, I’ve recently been trying out VLAN groups in a test environment. This is my environment. I’ve found that on the F5, there’s no need to configure any Virtual Servers; client(1.1.1.10) can connect successfully to Server:443(1.1.1.20). I set up an ForwardingL2-type virtual server, but no traffic is through the Virtual Server; instead, it goes through the VLAN group. Why isn’t the traffic being routed through the VS?209Views0likes3CommentsStruggling with web GUI usability with links in new tabs
Hi, there's thing thing with the web GUI for a BIG-IP that slows me down terribly, if I want, let's say, to open multiple tabs of different virtual servers, I have to do it slooooooowly, I can't open 10 tabs in like 2 seconds because the web GUI somehow needs to load everything before accepting a new link, if I open virtual server A in a new tab I have to wait for it to fully load before opening vs B because if I don't, it'll load vs B in both tabs, is there any way to prevent this from happening? It's pretty infuriating. Also is there a way to make the web GUI not work as an SPA? I know there's the "link to this page" thing in the gear icon for each page, but I just want to have my tabs with the absolute URL, not hxxps://host/xui. Thanks.136Views0likes1CommentLB Connection Limit Detection Method
We have set a connection limit on the load balancer. If there is a way to detect when the upper limit of the connection limit is exceeded, please let us know. We are considering detection via log monitoring, but we would like to confirm if there are other methods available.190Views0likes5CommentsTCP Profile with Verified Accept enabled and three-way TCP handshake
Hi, I'm trying to understand exactly how the Standard virtual server processes connections using the full proxy architecture works when Verified Accept is enable on the TCP profile. With Verified Accept disabled, the three-way TCP handshake occurs on the client side of the connection before the BIG-IP LTM system initiates the TCP handshake on the server side of the connection. Only when the client side TCP handshake is complete, LTM chooses a pool member and start the server side three-way TCP handshake. When Verified Accept is enabled, "the system sends the server a SYN packet, and waits for the server to respond with a SYN-ACK, before responding to the client's SYN with a SYN-ACK" (K98387022: TCP Profile with Verified Accept enabled). My question : when Verified Accept is enabled the server side TCP handshake is completed before or after the client side TCP handshake ? I'm confusing because in the F5 documentation this behavior is not clearly described and because in the document K98387022 I read this example : For example, given an HTTP virtual server, the order of events changes. Verified Accept disabled: CLIENT_ACCEPTED -> HTTP_REQUEST -> LB_SELECTED -> SERVER_CONNECTED -> HTTP_REQUEST_SEND Verified Accept enabled: CLIENT_ACCEPTED -> LB_SELECTED -> SERVER_CONNECTED -> HTTP_REQUEST -> HTTP_REQUEST_SEND If I'm not mistaken, CLIENT_ACCEPTED means that the connection has been established and that the three-way handshake is complete. So, in this example the client side handshake is completed before the server side handshake in both cases ? Thanks for your help DiegoSolved203Views1like4Comments