Forum Widgets
Latest Discussions
Traffic processing BGP Azure VPN gateway A/A
Hello, Can someone explain how Azure processes the traffic with implemented a VPN gateway in Active Active mode?. Azure firewall premium is also configured. BGP is without preferences. The user route definition is set up to the next hop Azure firewall . Is it possible in this scenario occurs the asymmetric routing with traffic drop by azure firewall ? In my understand is that, if we need to configure User route definition on Gateway subnet to inspect traffic to peering subnet, so the firewall don't see traffic passing through VPN gateway. Traffic going through ipsec tunnels can go different paths and firewall do not interfere because everything is routed to it by user route definition.LechuFeb 22, 2026Copper Contributor33Views0likes1CommentHelp! - How is VNet traffic reaching vWAN/on‑prem when the VNet isn’t connected to the vWAN hub
Hello, I needed some clarity on how the following is working: Attached is a network diagram of our current setup. The function apps (in VNet-1) initiate a connection(s) to a specific IP:Port or FQDN:Port in the on-premises network(s). A Private DNS zone ensures that any FQDN is resolved to the correct internal IP address of the on-prem endpoint. In our setup, both the function app and the external firewall reside in the same VNet. This firewall is described as “Unattached” because it is not the built-in firewall of a secured vWAN hub, but rather an independent Azure Firewall deployed in that VNet. The VNet has a user-defined default route (0.0.0.0/0) directing all outbound traffic to the firewall’s IP. The firewall then filters the traffic, allowing only traffic destined to whitelisted on-premises IP: Port or FQDN: Port combinations (using IP Groups), and blocking everything else. The critical question and the part that I am unable to figure out is: Once the firewall permits a packet, how does Azure know to route it to the vWAN hub and on to the site-to-site VPN? Because VNet-1 truly has no connection at all to the vWAN hub (no direct attachment, no peering, no VPN from the NVA). But the traffic is still reaching the on-prem sites. Unable to figure out how this is happening. Am I missing something obvious? Any help on this would be appreciated. Thank you!YuktiVerma2025Feb 17, 2026Copper Contributor67Views0likes3CommentsHelp ! - Hub Spoke Architecture and Routing via NVA
I have a classic example of routing. I want to force all traffic via Fortigate firewalls. EastWest and NorthSouth. However when large Supernet of Azure Vnet is used to route and force the traffic via UDR at gateway subnet, its not working. Because Routes learned at Hub Vnet via Vnet peering is taking precedence. To isolate, i have created multiple small subnet routes for Gateway subnet. Each pointing to spoke vnet and next hop as Fortigate firewall. However this is working, i want to make solution solid. Means if someone creates new vnet in future and peer with Hub, it should not get direct traffic. Is that possible? Or this is typical shortcoming of Azure where routing works with preference to vnet peeering.? Below is architecture -Solved133Views0likes2CommentsSpoke-Hub-Hub Traffic with VPN Gateway BGP and Firewall Issue
Hello, I’m facing a situation where I’m trying to have Azure Firewall Inspection on the VPN Gateway VNET-VNET Connectivity. It seems to work if I go from SpokeA-HubAFirewall-HubAVPN—HubBVPN-SpokeB but if I try to go from SpokeA-HubAFirewall-HubAVPN-HubBVM or Inbound Resolver it fails to route correctly according to Connectivity Troubleshooter it stops at HubAVPN with Local Error: RouteMissing but then reaches destination health so makes me believe it’s getting there but not following the route I want it to take which might be causing routing issues. What Am I missing here? This connectivity was working before introducing the Azure Firewall for Inspection with the UDR. Is what I’m trying to accomplish not possible? I’ve tried different types of UDR rules on the Gateway Subnet, and this is my most recent configuration. The reason I’m trying to accomplish this is because I’m seeing a similar error in our Hub-Spoke Hybrid environment and I’m trying to replicate the issue. Current Configuration 2x Hubs with Spoke networks attached so example Hub-Spoke-A Configuration: Hub-A Contains following subnets and Resources VPN Gateway - GateWaySubnet Azure Firewall - AzureFirewallSubnet Inbound Private Resolver - PrivateResolverSubnet Virtual Machine – VM Subnet Gateway Subnet has an attached UDR with the following routes Propagation - True Prefix Destination – Hub-B Next Hop Type – Virtual Appliance Next Hope IP – Hub-A Firewall Prefix Destination – Spoke-B Next Hop Type – Virtual Appliance Next Hope IP – Hub-A Firewall Hub-Spoke-B Configuration: Hub-B Contains following subnets and Resources VPN Gateway - GateWaySubnet Azure Firewall - AzureFirewallSubnet Inbound Private Resolver - PrivateResolverSubnet Virtual Machine – VM Subnet Gateway Subnet has an attached UDR with the following Routes Propagation - True Prefix Destination – Hub-A Next Hop Type – Virtual Appliance Next Hope IP – Hub-B Firewall Prefix Destination – Spoke-A Next Hop Type – Virtual Appliance Next Hope IP – Hub-B Firewall Spoke Subnets has an attached UDR with the following Routes Propagation - True Prefix Destination – 0.0.0.0/0 Next Hop Type – Virtual Appliance Next Hope IP – HubA/HubB Firewall (Depending on what hub its peered to) VPN Gateways HA VNET-VNET with BGP Enabled. I can see that it knows the routes and like I said this was working prior introducing the UDRs for force traffic through the azure firewall.CUrti300Nov 20, 2025Copper Contributor211Views0likes2CommentsWhat would be the expected behavior for an NSP?
I'm using a network security perimeter in Azure. In the perimeter there are two resources assigned: A storage Account and An Azure SQL Databse. I'm using the BULK INSERT dbo.YourTable FROM 'sample_data.csv' getting data from the storage account. The NSP is enforced for both resources, so the public connectivity is denied for resources outside the perimeter I have experienced this behavior: the azure SQL CANNOT access the storage account when I run the command. I resolved using: I need to add an outbound rule in the NSP to reach the storage fqdn I need to add an inbound rule in the NSP to allow the public IP of the SQL Azure When I do 1 and 2, azure SQL is able to pump data from the storage. IMHO this is not the expected behavior for two resources in the NSP. I expect that, as they are in the same NSP, they can communicate to each other. I have experienced a different behavior when using keyvault in the same NSP. I'm using the keyvault to get the keys for encryption for the same storage. For the key vault, i didn't have to create any rule to make it able to communicate to the storage, as they are in the same NSP. I know, Azure SQL is in preview for the NSP and the keyvault in GA, but I want to ask if the experienced behavior (the SQL CANNOT connect to the storage even if in the same NSP) is due to a unstable or unimplemented feature, or I'm missing something? What is the expected behavior? Thank you community!!Antonio BuonaiutoNov 19, 2025Copper Contributor81Views0likes1CommentAzure traffic to storage account
Hello, I’ve set up a storage account in Tenant A, located in the AUEast region, with public access. I also created a VM in Tenant B, in the same region (AUEast). I’m able to use IP whitelisting on the storage account in Tenant A to allow traffic only from the VM in Tenant B. However, in the App Insights logs, the traffic appears as 10.X.X.X, likely because the VM is in the same region. I'm unsure why the public IP isn't reflected in the logs. Moreover, I am not sure about this part https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/storage/common/storage-network-security-limitations#:~:text=You%20can%27t%20use%20IP%20network%20rules%20to%20restrict%20access%20to%20clients%20in%20the%20same%20Azure%20region%20as%20the%20storage%20account.%20IP%20network%20rules%20have%20no%20effect%20on%20requests%20that%20originate%20from%20the%20same%20Azure%20region%20as%20the%20storage%20account.%20Use%20Virtual%20network%20rules%20to%20allow%20same%2Dregion%20requests. This seems contradictory, as IP whitelisting is working on the storage account. I assume the explanation above applies only when the client is hosted in the same tenant and region as the storage account, and not when the client is in a different tenant, even if it's in the same region. I’d appreciate it if someone could shed some light on this. Thanks, Mohsen106Views0likes3CommentsAzure Express Route Peering with on Prem Firewall
Is there any way we can have express route peer BGP directly with on Prem Firewall via /29 subnet The firewall has active / standby and VIP. The express route peering require two /30 . if I have an active standby and VIP on the firewall how is that going to work ?ahmedaljawadSep 23, 2025Copper Contributor97Views0likes2CommentsHow to setup Internet access after All Basic IPs be retired on September 30, 2025
As subject, what can I do to maintain Internet accessSolvedJasonIpSep 22, 2025Copper Contributor70Views0likes1CommentHub spoke design with NVA firewall
I have my Azure landing zone setup but it isn't working as i expected. So i have a vnet named vnet-lz-fw-001 with 2 subnets. External and Trusted. I then have a NVA Watchguard Firewall with an interface on each subnet. I then have 2 further vnets, vnet-lz-prod-001 and vnet-lz-id-001. Each of these vnets has peering to vnet-lz-fw-001 but no peering between each other. vnet-lz-prod-001 and vnet-lz-id-001 have user defined routes to point to each other via the trusted interface on the Watchguard NVA The Watchguard firewall has static routes to point to each subnet in the vnets via the Trusted interface gateway address. Virtual machines in both vnet-lz-prod-001 and vnet-lz-id-001 can ping each other, but when they do its not routing via the Watchguard firewall. Is this as expected behavior? Virtual machines in both vnet-lz-prod-001 and vnet-lz-id-001 can ping the trusted interface on the Watchguard Firewall okSolvedjlhall1000Sep 10, 2025Copper Contributor113Views0likes1CommentStorage not reachable from network using service endpoint.
Hello, Here is the situation. The storage (File share )had assigned networks to allow access. We refresh some changes in the NSG from the network using bicep code ( Outbound was permitted all- no change. Inbound - we updated a name of a rule). What happened: no more access to the storage. No more connection on SMB port. The port was reported as closed. We removed the storage configuration of allowed networks ( the status was still Green), we add it back and magically it started to work. Any hints of what could have went wrong? Thank you107Views1like2Comments
Tags
- virtual network51 Topics
- vpn gateway26 Topics
- azure firewall25 Topics
- virtual wan18 Topics
- application gateway13 Topics
- load balancer12 Topics
- azure private link10 Topics
- azure dns10 Topics
- azure expressroute9 Topics
- azure front door8 Topics