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" <d...@cloudstack.apache.org>, "Khosrow Moossavi" > <kmooss...@cloudops.com>, "Will Stevens" > <wstev...@cloudops.com>, "Nux!" <n...@li.nux.ro>, "users" > <users@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" <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 >> > >
