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 ? 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" <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 > >> > > >
