XC Distributed Cloud and how to keep the Source IP from changing with customer edges(CE)!
Code is community submitted, community supported, and recognized as ‘Use At Your Own Risk’. Old applications sometimes do not accept a different IP address to be used by the clients during the session/connection. How can make certain the IP stays the same for a client? The best will always be the application to stop tracking users based on something primitive as an ip address and sometimes the issue is in the Load Balancer or ADC after the XC RE and then if the persistence is based on source IP address on the ADC to be changed in case it is BIG-IP to Cookie or Universal or SSL session based if the Load Balancer is doing no decryption and it is just TCP/UDP layer . As an XC Regional Edge (RE) has many ip addresses it can connect to the origin servers adding a CE for the legacy apps is a good option to keep the source IP from changing for the same client HTTP requests during the session/transaction. Before going through this article I recommend reading the links below: F5 Distributed Cloud – CE High Availability Options: A Comparative Exploration | DevCentral F5 Distributed Cloud - Customer Edge | F5 Distributed Cloud Technical Knowledge Create Two Node HA Infrastructure for Load Balancing Using Virtual Sites with Customer Edges | F5 Distributed Cloud Technical Knowledge RE to CE cluster of 3 nodes The new SNAT prefix option under the origin pool allows no mater what CE connects to the origin pool the same IP address to be seen by the origin. Be careful as if you have more than a single IP with /32 then again the client may get each time different IP address. This may cause "inet port exhaustion " ( that is what it is called in F5BIG-IP) if there are too many connections to the origin server, so be careful as the SNAT option was added primary for that use case. There was an older option called "LB source IP persistence" but better not use it as it was not so optimized and clean as this one. RE to 2 CE nodes in a virtual site The same option with SNAT pool is not allowed for a virtual site made of 2 standalone CE. For this we can use the ring hash algorithm. Why this works? Well as Kayvan explained to me the hashing of the origin is taking into account the CE name, so the same origin under 2 different CE will get the same ring hash and the same source IP address will be send to the same CE to access the Origin Server. This will not work for a single 3-node CE cluster as it all 3 nodes have the same name. I have seen 503 errors when ring hash is enabled under the HTTP LB so enable it only under the XC route object and the attached origin pool to it! CE hosted HTTP LB with Advertise policy In XC with CE you can do do HA with 3-cluster CE that can be layer2 HA based on VRRP and arp or Layer 3 persistence based bgp that can work 3 node CE cluster or 2 CE in a virtual site and it's control options like weight, as prepend or local preference options at the router level. For the Layer 2 I will just mention that you need to allow 224.0.0.8 for the VRRP if you are migrating from BIG-IP HA and that XC selects 1 CE to hold active IP that is seen in the XC logs and at the moment the selection for some reason can't be controlled. if a CE can't reach the origin servers in the origin pool it should stop advertising the HTTP LB IP address through BGP. For those options Deploying F5 Distributed Cloud (XC) Services in Cisco ACI - Layer Three Attached Deployment is a great example as it shows ECMP BGP but with the BGP attributes you can easily select one CE to be active and processing connections, so that just one ip address is seen by the origin server. When a CE gets traffic by default it does prefer to send it to the origin as by default "Local Preferred" is enabled under the origin pool. In the clouds like AWS/Azure just a cloud native LB is added In front of the 3 CE cluster and the solution there is simple as to just modify the LB to have a persistence. Public Clouds do not support ARP, so forget about Layer 2 and play with the native LB that load balances between the CE 😉 CE on Public Cloud (AWS/Azure/GCP) When deploying on a public cloud the CE can be deployed in two ways one is through the XC GUI and adding the AWS credentials but this way you have not a big freedom to be honest as you can't deploy 2 CE and make a virtual site out of them and add cloud LB in-front of them as it always will be 3-CE cluster with preconfigured cloud LB that will use all 3 LB! Using the newer "clickops" method is much better https://docs.cloud.f5.com/docs-v2/multi-cloud-network-connect/how-to/site-management/deploy-site-aws-clickops or using terraform but with manual mode and aws as a provider (not XC/volterra as it is the same as the XC GUI deployment) https://docs.cloud.f5.com/docs-v2/multi-cloud-network-connect/how-to/site-management/deploy-aws-site-terraform This way you can make the Cloud LB to use just one CE or have some client Persistence or if traffic comes from RE to CE to implement the virtual site 2 CE node! There is no Layer 2 ARP support as I mentioned in public cloud with 3-node cluster but there is NAT policy https://docs.cloud.f5.com/docs-v2/multi-cloud-network-connect/how-tos/networking/nat-policies but I haven't tried it myself to comment on it. Hope you enjoyed this article!
Run mkdir over iControl REST for disappearing /var/config/rest/downloads/tmp
Hello, I am currently writing the code for automating our ssl cert deployment among other things. I upload files to the Bigip device to shared/file-transfer/uploads/ This only works when the directory /var/config/rest/downloads/tmp exists. I noticed this periodically is removed again. Is there a way I can run an mkdir over REST to fix this? Regards
Remote Logging of Log Files
I've configured F5 Big IP to send logs to a remote location. However it sends several messages. I know it is possible to configure log levels from 'Options' (critical, emergency, etc.) What I want to learn that, is it possible to configure remote logging such that sends only LTM logs (I mean logs written to /var/log/ltm file, only)?
BIGIP system can't access internet with proxy
Hi, I'm trying to configure a LTM cluster to access internet through a proxy. The goal is to re-activate licence in automatic mode. I tried to configure the proxy parameters with this SOL: "Optional: If the BIG-IP system connects to the Internet using a forward proxy server, set these system database variables. Type tmsh modify sys db proxy.host value hostname to specify the host name of the proxy server. Type tmsh modify sys db proxy.port value port_number to specify the port number of the proxy server." But when I click on reactivate licence I have a timeout. If anyone had a solution. Thanks
Which attack signature sets does contain others?
My application is running on Apache Tomcat and there is one signature set with such name. Of course, I enabled it. The question is should I also enable sets referred to e.g. Apache, Java Servlets? Or maybe required signatures are containing in Apache Tomcat set already?
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.
