> Op 13 november 2017 om 15:14 schreef Pierre-Luc Dion <pd...@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! <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" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, "Khosrow Moossavi" < > > kmooss...@cloudops.com>, "Will Stevens" > > > <wstev...@cloudops.com>, "Nux!" <n...@li.nux.ro>, "users" < > > us...@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" <us...@cloudstack.apache.org> > > >> > > > > Cc: "Khosrow Moossavi" <kmooss...@cloudops.com>, "Will > > Stevens" < > > >> > > wstev...@cloudops.com>, "dev" > > >> > > > > <dev@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" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > > >> > > > >> > > > Cc: "users" <us...@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 > > >> > > > >
