That's funny! Cloudstack ui does not provide lb protocol options, but the api does and cloudstack already support proxy proto v1!!!
So that's cool! Le 13 nov. 2017 09 h 18, "Wido den Hollander" <w...@widodh.nl> a écrit : > > > Op 13 november 2017 om 15:14 schreef Pierre-Luc Dion <pd...@cloudops.com > >: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > This is looking quite promising, I have a colleague that tested that last > > Friday, look like the proxy proto v1 work out of the box with Nginx, but > > would need an extra package for Apache 2.4 ? > > It depends. You need HTTPd 2.4.28, see: https://httpd.apache.org/docs/ > trunk/mod/mod_remoteip.html#remoteipproxyprotocol > > It's there upstream, but not in all packages. > > It can from this module: > > - https://github.com/roadrunner2/mod-proxy-protocol > - https://roadrunner2.github.io/mod-proxy-protocol/mod_proxy_protocol.html > > They donated the code to go upstream and went into mod_remoteip but landed > in 2.4.28 > > It will probably make it into Ubuntu 18.04 and CentOS 7.4. > > Wido > > > Otherwise, it seems to be a good way to do https LB without complicated > > configuration and huge changes in CloudStack. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Nux! <n...@li.nux.ro> wrote: > > > > > Pierre-Luc, > > > > > > Haproxy docs say it should work for any kind of traffic as long as both > > > ends are PROXY-aware and it look like a majority of software is. > > > So, in short, yes. > > > > > > -- > > > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > > > > > > Nux! > > > www.nux.ro > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Pierre-Luc Dion" <pd...@cloudops.com> > > > > To: "Wido den Hollander" <w...@widodh.nl> > > > > Cc: "dev" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, "Khosrow Moossavi" < > > > kmooss...@cloudops.com>, "Will Stevens" > > > > <wstev...@cloudops.com>, "Nux!" <n...@li.nux.ro>, "users" < > > > us...@cloudstack.apache.org> > > > > Sent: Friday, 10 November, 2017 15:32:38 > > > > Subject: Re: HTTPS LB and x-forwarded-for > > > > > > > Hi Wido, do you know if this would work for https traffic too? > > > > > > > > Le 10 nov. 2017 09 h 35, "Wido den Hollander" <w...@widodh.nl> a > écrit : > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > Op 10 november 2017 om 14:27 schreef Pierre-Luc Dion < > > > pd...@cloudops.com > > > >> >: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > I kind of like the proxy backend type, ill check on our end if > that > > > would > > > >> > work but definitely a simple and efficient approach! > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> See: https://www.haproxy.com/blog/haproxy/proxy-protocol/ > > > >> > > > >> Apache HTTPd supports PROXY since 2.4.28: > > > https://httpd.apache.org/docs/ > > > >> trunk/mod/mod_remoteip.html#remoteipproxyprotocol > > > >> > > > >> "RemoteIPProxyProtocol is only available in httpd 2.4.28 and newer" > > > >> > > > >> Wido > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Le 10 nov. 2017 01 h 44, "Wido den Hollander" <w...@widodh.nl> a > > > écrit : > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Op 9 november 2017 om 19:59 schreef Nux! <n...@li.nux.ro>: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Wido, > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Excellent suggestion with the "transparent proxy", I was not > > > aware of > > > >> > > that. > > > >> > > > I think that would be a great idea and wouldn't require too > many > > > >> > > modifications, especially as Haproxy comes already with the VR. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > It's indeed just a matter of a HAProxy config setting. We could > > > make it > > > >> > > configurable per backend in HAProxy. Regular HTTP, TCP or PROXY > for > > > >> example. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > That way your problem would be solved. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Wido > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > To Paul: > > > >> > > > - imho the LB solution ACS ships now is a bit handicaped since > > > you do > > > >> > > not know the remote host ip. You're flying blind unless you use > > > google > > > >> > > analytics (and these things have gotten more and more > aggressively > > > >> filtered > > > >> > > by adblocks). > > > >> > > > Enhancing Haproxy as Wido suggested would go a long way, it > > > wouldn't > > > >> > > break existing functionality and would also keep SSL processing > off > > > >> the VR. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > -- > > > >> > > > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Nux! > > > >> > > > www.nux.ro > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > > > > From: "Andrija Panic" <andrija.pa...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > > > To: "users" <us...@cloudstack.apache.org> > > > >> > > > > Cc: "Khosrow Moossavi" <kmooss...@cloudops.com>, "Will > > > Stevens" < > > > >> > > wstev...@cloudops.com>, "dev" > > > >> > > > > <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, "Pierre-Luc Dion" < > > > pd...@cloudops.com > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 9 November, 2017 13:10:58 > > > >> > > > > Subject: Re: HTTPS LB and x-forwarded-for > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Wido, > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > backend servers are not Linux only, for example we have a > ton of > > > >> > > Windows > > > >> > > > > customers, some WEB solutions / IIS etc... > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > @all - If we try to please/solve everyone's proxying > > > >> > > solution/requirement - > > > >> > > > > this is impossible IMHO - I'm thinking more about some "do > it as > > > >> you > > > >> > > like" > > > >> > > > > solution, to let customer write his own haproxy config and > > > upoad it > > > >> > > (for > > > >> > > > > example, or something better?). > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > We can support newer version of haproxy (1.5+) which also > > > implement > > > >> > > > > "transarent proxy" (integrate with kernel so to speak) to > allow > > > >> > > TCP-level > > > >> > > > > connections to backend (TCP mode, not HTTP mode) but to > still > > > >> > > "preserve" > > > >> > > > > remote IP by faking it (fake soruce IP = transarent proxy). > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > For the rest of configuration options, I would leave it to > the > > > >> > > customer > > > >> > > > > how he/she wants to configure rest of haproxy configuration, > > > >> inlcuding > > > >> > > > > custom checks, etc. Haproxy configuration is never-ending > story, > > > >> and we > > > >> > > > > probably should allow custom sripts/configuration instead of > > > >> trying to > > > >> > > > > provide GUI/API way to configure everything (which is > > > >> impossible...) > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Just my 2 cents... > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On 9 November 2017 at 08:13, Wido den Hollander < > w...@widodh.nl > > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Op 8 november 2017 om 14:59 schreef Pierre-Luc Dion < > > > >> > > pd...@cloudops.com > > > >> > > > >> >: > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > Same challenge here too! > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > Let's look at improving Load-balancing offering from > > > >> cloudstack, I > > > >> > > guest > > > >> > > > >> we > > > >> > > > >> > should do a feature spec draft soon.., from my > perspective, > > > >> doing > > > >> > > SSL > > > >> > > > >> > offload on the VR could be problematic if the VR spec if > too > > > >> small, > > > >> > > and > > > >> > > > >> the > > > >> > > > >> > default spec of the VR being 1vcpu@256MB, considering > it can > > > >> be the > > > >> > > > >> router > > > >> > > > >> > of a VPC, doing VPN termination, adding HTTPS is a bit > > > ish... > > > >> What > > > >> > > would > > > >> > > > >> > be your thought about this ? > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > I'd be curious to have a LB offering in ACS where it > would > > > >> deploy a > > > >> > > > >> > redundant traefik[1] beside the VR for doing http and > https > > > >> > > > >> Load-balancing. > > > >> > > > >> > I think it would also be useful if the API of that > traefik > > > >> instance > > > >> > > would > > > >> > > > >> > be available from within the VPC or LBnetwork so is API > > > would be > > > >> > > > >> accessible > > > >> > > > >> > to other apps orchestration tools such as kubernetes or > > > >> rancher. > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > traefik or not, here is what I think is needed by > cloudstack > > > in > > > >> the > > > >> > > LB > > > >> > > > >> > improvement: > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > - support http, https (X-Forwarded-For) > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> HAProxy also supports the PROXY protocol towards the > backends. > > > >> Apache > > > >> > > > >> 2.4.22 supports this natively and Varnish for example can > also > > > >> talk > > > >> > > PROXY. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> It adds a littlebit of metadata to the connection so that > the > > > >> backend > > > >> > > > >> knows the original IP the connection came from for example: > > > >> > > > >> https://www.haproxy.org/download/1.8/doc/proxy- > protocol.txt > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Wido > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > - basic persistence tuning (API already exist) > > > >> > > > >> > - better backend monitoring, currently only a tcp connect > > > >> validate > > > >> > > if the > > > >> > > > >> > webserver is up. > > > >> > > > >> > - ssl offload > > > >> > > > >> > - metric collection, more stats, maybe just export the > tool > > > >> status > > > >> > > page > > > >> > > > >> to > > > >> > > > >> > the private network. > > > >> > > > >> > - Container world support, right now if you have Rancher > or > > > >> > > kubernetes > > > >> > > > >> > cluster, you need to deploy your own LB solution behing > > > >> mostlikely a > > > >> > > > >> static > > > >> > > > >> > nat., If cloudstack would deploy a traefik instance, Kub > or > > > >> Rancher > > > >> > > could > > > >> > > > >> > reuse this instance and managed it to properly do LB > between > > > >> > > containers. > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > What would be your prefered LB tool: > > > >> > > > >> > haproxy, traefik or nginx? > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > CloudStack already have to code to handle SSL certs per > > > >> projects and > > > >> > > > >> > accounts if not mistaking because that code was added to > > > support > > > >> > > > >> NetScaler > > > >> > > > >> > as Load-balancer in the past. so one less thing to think > > > about > > > >> :-) > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > [1] https://traefik.io/ > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > PL, > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Nux! <n...@li.nux.ro> > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > Thanks Andrija, > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > LB outside of the VR sounds like a good idea. An > appliance > > > >> based > > > >> > > on, > > > >> > > > >> say > > > >> > > > >> > > cloud-init + ansible and so on could do the trick; alas > > > it'd > > > >> need > > > >> > > to be > > > >> > > > >> > > outside ACS. > > > >> > > > >> > > I guess as users we could maybe come up with a spec > for an > > > >> > > > >> improvement, at > > > >> > > > >> > > least we'd have something the devs could look at > whenever > > > it > > > >> is > > > >> > > > >> possible. > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > Regards, > > > >> > > > >> > > Lucian > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > > > >> > > > >> > > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > Nux! > > > >> > > > >> > > www.nux.ro > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > > > >> > > > From: "Andrija Panic" <andrija.pa...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > > >> > > > To: "dev" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Cc: "users" <us...@cloudstack.apache.org> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Sent: Thursday, 2 November, 2017 23:21:37 > > > >> > > > >> > > > Subject: Re: HTTPS LB and x-forwarded-for > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > We used to make some special stuff for one of the > > > clients, > > > >> > > where all > > > >> > > > >> LB > > > >> > > > >> > > > configuration work is done from outside of the ACS, > i.e. > > > >> python > > > >> > > > >> script to > > > >> > > > >> > > > feed/configure VR - install latest haproxy 1.5.x for > > > >> transparent > > > >> > > > >> proxy, > > > >> > > > >> > > > since client insisted on SSL termination done on > backend > > > >> web SSL > > > >> > > > >> > > servers.... > > > >> > > > >> > > > Not good idea, that is all I can say (custom > > > configuration > > > >> > > thing) - > > > >> > > > >> but > > > >> > > > >> > > the > > > >> > > > >> > > > LB setup is actually good - transparent mode haproxy, > > > works > > > >> on > > > >> > > TCP > > > >> > > > >> level, > > > >> > > > >> > > > so you can see "real client IP" on the backend > servers > > > >> (which > > > >> > > must > > > >> > > > >> use VR > > > >> > > > >> > > > as the default gtw, as per default, so the whole > setup > > > works > > > >> > > > >> properly). > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > I'm still looking forward to see some special > support of > > > LB > > > >> > > inside > > > >> > > > >> VR via > > > >> > > > >> > > > ACS - proper LB setup inside VR via GUI/API - i.e. > to > > > >> enable LB > > > >> > > > >> > > > provisioning SCRIPT (bash, or whatever), where all > > > needed > > > >> > > > >> > > > install+configure can be done from client side - > > > otherwise > > > >> > > covering > > > >> > > > >> all > > > >> > > > >> > > > user cases, with proper HTTP checks and similar....is > > > >> > > impossible to > > > >> > > > >> do > > > >> > > > >> > > > IMHO. > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Some other clients, actually have internal FW > appliance > > > >> (i.e. > > > >> > > > >> multihomed > > > >> > > > >> > > > VM, acting as gtw for all VMs in all networks), and > > > haproxy > > > >> > > instaled > > > >> > > > >> on > > > >> > > > >> > > > this device (with NAT configured from VR to this > internal > > > >> > > FW/VM, so > > > >> > > > >> > > remote > > > >> > > > >> > > > IP can be seen properly) - this setup is fully under > > > >> customer > > > >> > > > >> control, > > > >> > > > >> > > and > > > >> > > > >> > > > can provide any kind of special haproxy config... > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > On 31 October 2017 at 19:54, Nux! <n...@li.nux.ro> > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> Hello, > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> Of the people running an LB (VR) with https > backends, > > > how > > > >> do > > > >> > > you > > > >> > > > >> deal > > > >> > > > >> > > with > > > >> > > > >> > > >> the lack of x-forwarded-for since for port 443 > there's > > > just > > > >> > > simple > > > >> > > > >> TCP > > > >> > > > >> > > >> balancing? > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> Has anyone thought of terminating SSL in the VR > instead? > > > >> Ideas? > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> Cheers > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> -- > > > >> > > > >> > > >> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> Nux! > > > >> > > > >> > > >> www.nux.ro > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Andrija Panić > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > -- > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Andrija Panić > > > >> > > > > > >
