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" <users@cloudstack.apache.org> > > > > > Cc: "Khosrow Moossavi" <kmooss...@cloudops.com>, "Will Stevens" < > > > wstev...@cloudops.com>, "dev" > > > > > <d...@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" <d...@cloudstack.apache.org> > > > > >> > > > Cc: "users" <users@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 > > > >
