cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nux! <...@li.nux.ro>
Subject Re: HTTPS LB and x-forwarded-for
Date Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:36:27 GMT
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
View raw message