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, 17 Nov 2017 13:56:11 GMT
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" <wido@widodh.nl> a écrit :

>
> > Op 13 november 2017 om 15:14 schreef Pierre-Luc Dion <pdion@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! <nux@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" <pdion@cloudops.com>
> > > > To: "Wido den Hollander" <wido@widodh.nl>
> > > > Cc: "dev" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, "Khosrow Moossavi" <
> > > kmoossavi@cloudops.com>, "Will Stevens"
> > > > <wstevens@cloudops.com>, "Nux!" <nux@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" <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