cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre-Luc Dion <pd...@cloudops.com>
Subject Re: HTTPS LB and x-forwarded-for
Date Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:32:38 GMT
Hi Wido, do you know if this would work for https traffic too?

Le 10 nov. 2017 09 h 35, "Wido den Hollander" <wido@widodh.nl> a écrit :

>
> > Op 10 november 2017 om 14:27 schreef Pierre-Luc Dion <pdion@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" <wido@widodh.nl> a écrit :
> >
> > >
> > > > Op 9 november 2017 om 19:59 schreef Nux! <nux@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.panic@gmail.com>
> > > > > To: "users" <users@cloudstack.apache.org>
> > > > > Cc: "Khosrow Moossavi" <kmoossavi@cloudops.com>, "Will Stevens"
<
> > > wstevens@cloudops.com>, "dev"
> > > > > <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, "Pierre-Luc Dion" <pdion@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 <wido@widodh.nl>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Op 8 november 2017 om 14:59 schreef Pierre-Luc Dion <
> > > pdion@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! <nux@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.panic@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > To: "dev" <dev@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! <nux@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
> > >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message