IKEv2 and Windows 10/11 drops connectivity but stays connected in Windows
I’ve seen this with 2 different customers using IKEv2 User VPNs (virtual wan) and Point to Site gateways in hub and spoke whereby using the VPN in a Always On configuration (device and user tunnel) that after a specific amount of time (56 minutes) the IKEv2 connection will drop the tunnel but stay connected in Windows. To restore the connection, you just reconnect. has anyone else had a similar experience? I’ve seen the issue with ExpressRoute and with/without Azure firewalls in the topology too.
How can I convert an website on Microsoft to IOS?
Hello everyone, Hope you all are doing good, I am Jeck. I have a website which I design and developed on my apple machine and basically made on IOS. Now, I want to change my website to Microsoft, my website is on https://www.bestelectricsmoker2021.com/ Can you guide me porperly or suggest me anyone who can work for me and extend my bussiness on Micosoft. Thank you Have a good day!Spoke-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.
Announcing Azure DNS security policy with Threat Intelligence feed general availability
Azure DNS security policy with Threat Intelligence feed allows early detection and prevention of security incidents on customer Virtual Networks where known malicious domains sourced by Microsoft’s Security Response Center (MSRC) can be blocked from name resolution. Azure DNS security policy with Threat Intelligence feed is being announced to all customers and will have regional availability in all public regions.
Announcing the public preview of StandardV2 NAT Gateway and StandardV2 public IPs
In today’s rapidly changing digital landscape, organizations are innovating faster and delivering cloud native experiences at global scale. With this acceleration comes higher expectations: applications must remain always available. An outage in a single availability zone can have a ripple effect on application performance, user experience, and business continuity. To safeguard against zone outages, making your cloud architecture zone resilient isn't an option—it’s a necessity. A key part of any resilient design is ensuring reliable outbound connectivity. Azure NAT Gateway is a fully managed network address translation service that provides highly scalable and secure internet connectivity for resources inside your virtual networks. We’re excited to announce the public preview of the StandardV2 SKU NAT Gateway, an evolution of Azure NAT Gateway built for the next generation of scale, performance, and resiliency. StandardV2 NAT Gateway delivers zone redundancy, enhanced data processing limits, IPv6 support, and flow logs all at the same price as the Standard SKU NAT Gateway. This release also marks the public preview of StandardV2 SKU public IP addresses and prefixes. A new SKU of public IPs that must be used with StandardV2 NAT Gateway. In combination, StandardV2 IPs provide high-throughput connectivity to support demanding workloads. What’s new in StandardV2 NAT Gateway Zone redundancy StandardV2 NAT Gateway is zone-redundant by default in regions with availability zones. Deployed as a single resource operating across multiple zones, StandardV2 NAT Gateway ensures outbound connectivity even if one zone becomes unavailable. For example, a virtual machine in zone 2 connects outbound from zones 1, 2, or 3 through a StandardV2 NAT Gateway (as shown in the figure). If zone 1 experiences an outage, existing connections in that zone may fail, but new connections will seamlessly flow through zones 2 and 3—keeping your applications online and resilient. All existing connections through zones 2 and 3 will persist. To learn more, see StandardV2 NAT Gateway zone-redundancy. remaining healthy zones with StandardV2 NAT Gateway. This kind of resiliency is essential for any critical workload to ensure high availability. Whether you’re a global SaaS provider that needs to maintain service continuity for your customers during zonal outages or an e-commerce platform that needs to ensure high availability during peak shopping seasons, StandardV2 NAT Gateway can help you achieve greater protection against zonal outages. Higher performance StandardV2 doubles the performance of the Standard SKU, supporting up to 100 Gbps throughput and 10 million packets per second. These enhanced data processing limits are ideal for data-intensive and latency-sensitive applications requiring consistent, high-throughput outbound access to the internet. For more information, see StandardV2 NAT Gateway performance. StandardV2 public IPs Alongside NAT Gateway, StandardV2 public IP Addresses and Prefixes are now available in public preview. StandardV2 SKU public IPs are a new offering of public IPs that must be used with StandardV2 NAT Gateway to provide outbound connectivity. Standard SKU public IPs are not compatible with StandardV2 NAT Gateway. See how to deploy StandardV2 public IPs. IPv6 (dual-stack) support StandardV2 NAT Gateway now supports dual-stack (IPv4 + IPv6) connectivity, enabling organizations to meet regulatory requirements, optimize performance for modern architectures, and future-proof workloads at internet scale. Each NAT Gateway supports up to 16 IPv4 and 16 IPv6 StandardV2 public IP addresses or prefixes. See IPv6 support for StandardV2 NAT gateway for more information. Flow logs With StandardV2, you can now enable flow logs to gain deeper visibility into outbound traffic patterns. Flow logs capture detailed IP-level traffic information, helping you: Troubleshoot connectivity issues more efficiently. Identify top talkers behind the NAT Gateway (which virtual machines initiate the most connections outbound). Analyze traffic for compliance and security auditing for your organization Learn more at Enable flow logs on StandardV2 NAT Gateway. Deploying StandardV2 NAT Gateway and public IPs You can deploy StandardV2 NAT Gateway and StandardV2 public IPs using ARM templates, Bicep, PowerShell, or CLI. Portal and Terraform support is coming soon. For more information on client support, see StandardV2 NAT Gateway SKU. Learn More StandardV2 NAT Gateway StandardV2 public IPs Create and validate StandardV2 NAT Gateway NAT Gateway pricingAzure Virtual Network Manager + Azure Virtual WAN
Azure continues to expand its networking capabilities, with Azure Virtual Network Manager and Azure Virtual WAN (vWAN) standing out as two of the most transformative services. When deployed together, they offer the best of both worlds: the operational simplicity of a managed hub architecture combined with the ability for spoke VNets to communicate directly, avoiding additional hub hops and minimizing latency Revisiting the classic hub-and-spoke pattern Element Traditional hub-and-spoke role Hub VNet Centralized network that hosts shared services including firewalls (e.g., Azure Firewall, NVAs), VPN/ExpressRoute gateways, DNS servers, domain controllers, and central route tables for traffic management. Acts as the connectivity and security anchor for all spoke networks. Spoke VNets Host individual application workloads and peer directly to the hub VNet. Traffic flows through the hub for north-south connectivity (to/from on-premises or internet) and cross-spoke communication (east-west traffic between spokes). Benefits • Single enforcement point for security policies and network controls • No duplication of shared services across environments • Simplified routing logic and traffic flow management • Clear network segmentation and isolation between workloads • Cost optimization through centralized resources However, this architecture comes with a trade-off: every spoke-to-spoke packet must route through the hub, introducing additional network hops, increased latency, and potential throughput constraints. How Virtual WAN modernizes that design Virtual WAN replaces a do-it-yourself hub VNet with a fully managed hub service: Managed hubs – Azure owns and operates the hub infrastructure. Automatic route propagation – routes learned once are usable everywhere. Integrated add-ons – Firewalls, VPN, and ExpressRoute ports are first-class citizens. By default, Virtual WAN enables any-to-any routing between spokes. Traffic transits the hub fabric automatically—no configuration required. Why direct spoke mesh? Certain patterns require single-hop connectivity Micro-service meshes that sit in different spokes and exchange chatty RPC calls. Database replication / backups where throughput counts, and hub bandwidth is precious. Dev / Test / Prod spokes that need to sync artifacts quickly yet stay isolated from hub services. Segmentation mandates where a workload must bypass hub inspection for compliance yet still talk to a partner VNet. Benefits Lower latency – the hub detour disappears. Better bandwidth – no hub congestion or firewall throughput cap. Higher resilience – spoke pairs can keep talking even if the hub is under maintenance. The peering explosion problem With pure VNet peering, the math escalates fast: For n spokes you need n × (n-1)/2 links. Ten spokes? 45 peerings. Add four more? Now 91. Each extra peering forces you to: Touch multiple route tables. Update NSG rules to cover the new paths. Repeat every time you add or retire a spoke. Troubleshoot an ever-growing spider web. Where Azure Virtual Network Manager Steps In? Azure Virtual Network Manager introduces Network Groups plus a Mesh connectivity policy: Azure Virtual Network Manager Concept What it gives you Network group A logical container that groups multiple VNets together, allowing you to apply configurations and policies to all members simultaneously Mesh connectivity Automated peering between all VNets in the group, ensuring every member can communicate directly with every other member without manual configuration Declarative config Intent-based approach where you define the desired network state, and Azure Virtual Network Manager handles the implementation and ongoing maintenance Dynamic updates Automatic topology management—when VNets are added to or removed from a group, Azure Virtual Network Manager reconfigures all necessary connections without manual intervention Operational complexity collapses from O(n²) to O(1)—you manage a group, not 100+ individual peerings. A complementary model: Azure Virtual Network Manager mesh inside vWAN Since Azure Virtual Network Manager works on any Azure VNet—including the VNets you already attach to a vWAN hub—you can apply mesh policies on top of your existing managed hub architecture: Spoke VNets join a vWAN hub for branch connectivity, centralized firewalling, or multi-region reach. The same spokes are added to an Azure Virtual Network Manager Network Group with a mesh policy. Azure Virtual Network Manager builds direct peering links between the spokes, while vWAN continues to advertise and learn routes. Result: All VNets still benefit from vWAN’s global routing and on-premises integration. Latency-critical east-west flows now travel the shortest path—one hop—as if the VNets were traditionally peered. Rather than choosing one over the other, organizations can leverage both vWAN and Azure Virtual Network Manager together, as the combination enhances the strengths of each service. Performance illustration Spoke-to-Spoke Communication with Virtual WAN without Azure Virtual Network Manager mesh: Spoke-to-Spoke Communication with Virtual WAN with Azure Virtual Network Manager mesh: Observability & protection NSG flow logs – granular packet logs on every peered VNet. Azure Virtual Network Manager admin rules – org-wide guardrails that trump local NSGs. Azure Monitor + SIEM – route flow logs to Log Analytics, Sentinel, or third-party SIEM for threat detection. Layered design – hub firewalls inspect north-south traffic; NSGs plus admin rules secure east-west flows. Putting it all together Virtual WAN offers fully managed global connectivity, simplifying the integration of branch offices and on-premises infrastructure into your Azure environment. Azure Virtual Network Manager mesh establishes direct communication paths between spoke VNets, making it ideal for workloads requiring high throughput or minimal latency in east-west traffic patterns. When combined, these services provide architects with granular control over traffic routing. Each flow can be directed through hub services when needed or routed directly between spokes for optimal performance—all without re-architecting your network or creating additional management complexity. By pairing Azure Virtual Network Manager’s group-based mesh with VWAN’s managed hubs, you get the best of both worlds: worldwide reach, centralized security, and single-hop performance where it counts.
Deploying Third-Party Firewalls in Azure Landing Zones: Design, Configuration, and Best Practices
As enterprises adopt Microsoft Azure for large-scale workloads, securing network traffic becomes a critical part of the platform foundation. Azure’s Well-Architected Framework provides the blueprint for enterprise-scale Landing Zone design and deployments, and while Azure Firewall is a built-in PaaS option, some organizations prefer third-party firewall appliances for familiarity, feature depth, and vendor alignment. This blog explains the basic design patterns, key configurations, and best practices when deploying third-party firewalls (Palo Alto, Fortinet, Check Point, etc.) as part of an Azure Landing Zone. 1. Landing Zone Architecture and Firewall Role The Azure Landing Zone is Microsoft’s recommended enterprise-scale architecture for adopting cloud at scale. It provides a standardized, modular design that organizations can use to deploy and govern workloads consistently across subscriptions and regions. At its core, the Landing Zone follows a hub-and-spoke topology: Hub (Connectivity Subscription): Central place for shared services like DNS, private endpoints, VPN/ExpressRoute gateways, Azure Firewall (or third-party firewall appliances), Bastion, and monitoring agents. Provides consistent security controls and connectivity for all workloads. Firewalls are deployed here to act as the traffic inspection and enforcement point. Spokes (Workload Subscriptions): Application workloads (e.g., SAP, web apps, data platforms) are placed in spoke VNets. Additional specialized spokes may exist for Identity, Shared Services, Security, or Management. These are isolated for governance and compliance, but all connectivity back to other workloads or on-premises routes through the hub. Traffic Flows Through Firewalls North-South Traffic: Inbound connections from the Internet (e.g., customer access to applications). Outbound connections from Azure workloads to Internet services. Hybrid connectivity to on-premises datacenters or other clouds. Routed through the external firewall set for inspection and policy enforcement. East-West Traffic: Lateral traffic between spokes (e.g., Application VNet to Database VNet). Communication across environments like Dev → Test → Prod (if allowed). Routed through an internal firewall set to apply segmentation, zero-trust principles, and prevent lateral movement of threats. Why Firewalls Matter in the Landing Zone While Azure provides NSGs (Network Security Groups) and Route Tables for basic packet filtering and routing, these are not sufficient for advanced security scenarios. Firewalls add: Deep packet inspection (DPI) and application-level filtering. Intrusion Detection/Prevention (IDS/IPS) capabilities. Centralized policy management across multiple spokes. Segmentation of workloads to reduce blast radius of potential attacks. Consistent enforcement of enterprise security baselines across hybrid and multi-cloud. Organizations May Choose Depending on security needs, cost tolerance, and operational complexity, organizations typically adopt one of two models for third party firewalls: Two sets of firewalls One set dedicated for north-south traffic (external to Azure). Another set for east-west traffic (between VNets and spokes). Provides the highest security granularity, but comes with higher cost and management overhead. Single set of firewalls A consolidated deployment where the same firewall cluster handles both east-west and north-south traffic. Simpler and more cost-effective, but may introduce complexity in routing and policy segregation. This design choice is usually made during Landing Zone design, balancing security requirements, budget, and operational maturity. 2. Why Choose Third-Party Firewalls Over Azure Firewall? While Azure Firewall provides simplicity as a managed service, customers often choose third-party solutions due to: Advanced features – Deep packet inspection, IDS/IPS, SSL decryption, threat feeds. Vendor familiarity – Network teams trained on Palo Alto, Fortinet, or Check Point. Existing contracts – Enterprise license agreements and support channels. Hybrid alignment – Same vendor firewalls across on-premises and Azure. Azure Firewall is a fully managed PaaS service, ideal for customers who want a simple, cloud-native solution without worrying about underlying infrastructure. However, many enterprises continue to choose third-party firewall appliances (Palo Alto, Fortinet, Check Point, etc.) when implementing their Landing Zones. The decision usually depends on capabilities, familiarity, and enterprise strategy. Key Reasons to Choose Third-Party Firewalls Feature Depth and Advanced Security Third-party vendors offer advanced capabilities such as: Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) for application-aware filtering. Intrusion Detection and Prevention (IDS/IPS). SSL/TLS decryption and inspection. Advanced threat feeds, malware protection, sandboxing, and botnet detection. While Azure Firewall continues to evolve, these vendors have a longer track record in advanced threat protection. Operational Familiarity and Skills Network and security teams often have years of experience managing Palo Alto, Fortinet, or Check Point appliances on-premises. Adopting the same technology in Azure reduces the learning curve and ensures faster troubleshooting, smoother operations, and reuse of existing playbooks. Integration with Existing Security Ecosystem Many organizations already use vendor-specific management platforms (e.g., Panorama for Palo Alto, FortiManager for Fortinet, or SmartConsole for Check Point). Extending the same tools into Azure allows centralized management of policies across on-premises and cloud, ensuring consistent enforcement. Compliance and Regulatory Requirements Certain industries (finance, healthcare, government) require proven, certified firewall vendors for security compliance. Customers may already have third-party solutions validated by auditors and prefer extending those to Azure for consistency. Hybrid and Multi-Cloud Alignment Many enterprises run a hybrid model, with workloads split across on-premises, Azure, AWS, or GCP. Third-party firewalls provide a common security layer across environments, simplifying multi-cloud operations and governance. Customization and Flexibility Unlike Azure Firewall, which is a managed service with limited backend visibility, third-party firewalls give admins full control over operating systems, patching, advanced routing, and custom integrations. This flexibility can be essential when supporting complex or non-standard workloads. Licensing Leverage (BYOL) Enterprises with existing enterprise agreements or volume discounts can bring their own firewall licenses (BYOL) to Azure. This often reduces cost compared to pay-as-you-go Azure Firewall pricing. When Azure Firewall Might Still Be Enough Organizations with simple security needs (basic north-south inspection, FQDN filtering). Cloud-first teams that prefer managed services with minimal infrastructure overhead. Customers who want to avoid manual scaling and VM patching that comes with IaaS appliances. In practice, many large organizations use a hybrid approach: Azure Firewall for lightweight scenarios or specific environments, and third-party firewalls for enterprise workloads that require advanced inspection, vendor alignment, and compliance certifications. 3. Deployment Models in Azure Third-party firewalls in Azure are primarily IaaS-based appliances deployed as virtual machines (VMs). Leading vendors publish Azure Marketplace images and ARM/Bicep templates, enabling rapid, repeatable deployments across multiple environments. These firewalls allow organizations to enforce advanced network security policies, perform deep packet inspection, and integrate with Azure-native services such as Virtual Network (VNet) peering, Azure Monitor, and Azure Sentinel. Note: Some vendors now also release PaaS versions of their firewalls, offering managed firewall services with simplified operations. However, for the purposes of this blog, we will focus mainly on IaaS-based firewall deployments. Common Deployment Modes Active-Active Description: In this mode, multiple firewall VMs operate simultaneously, sharing the traffic load. An Azure Load Balancer distributes inbound and outbound traffic across all active firewall instances. Use Cases: Ideal for environments requiring high throughput, resilience, and near-zero downtime, such as enterprise data centers, multi-region deployments, or mission-critical applications. Considerations: Requires careful route and policy synchronization between firewall instances to ensure consistent traffic handling. Typically involves BGP or user-defined routes (UDRs) for optimal traffic steering. Scaling is easier: additional firewall VMs can be added behind the load balancer to handle traffic spikes. Active-Passive Description: One firewall VM handles all traffic (active), while the secondary VM (passive) stands by for failover. When the active node fails, Azure service principals manage IP reassignment and traffic rerouting. Use Cases: Suitable for environments where simpler management and lower operational complexity are preferred over continuous load balancing. Considerations: Failover may result in a brief downtime, typically measured in seconds to a few minutes. Synchronization between the active and passive nodes ensures firewall policies, sessions, and configurations are mirrored. Recommended for smaller deployments or those with predictable traffic patterns. Network Interfaces (NICs) Third-party firewall VMs often include multiple NICs, each dedicated to a specific type of traffic: Untrust/Public NIC: Connects to the Internet or external networks. Handles inbound/outbound public traffic and enforces perimeter security policies. Trust/Internal NIC: Connects to private VNets or subnets. Manages internal traffic between application tiers and enforces internal segmentation. Management NIC: Dedicated to firewall management traffic. Keeps administration separate from data plane traffic, improving security and reducing performance interference. HA NIC (Active-Passive setups): Facilitates synchronization between active and passive firewall nodes, ensuring session and configuration state is maintained across failovers. This design choice is usually made during Landing Zone design, balancing security requirements, budget, and operational maturity. : NICs of Palo Alto External Firewalls and FortiGate Internal Firewalls in two sets of firewall scenario 4. Key Configuration Considerations When deploying third-party firewalls in Azure, several design and configuration elements play a critical role in ensuring security, performance, and high availability. These considerations should be carefully aligned with organizational security policies, compliance requirements, and operational practices. Routing User-Defined Routes (UDRs): Define UDRs in spoke Virtual Networks to ensure all outbound traffic flows through the firewall, enforcing inspection and security policies before reaching the Internet or other Virtual Networks. Centralized routing helps standardize controls across multiple application Virtual Networks. Depending on the architecture traffic flow design, use appropriate Load Balancer IP as the Next Hop on UDRs of spoke Virtual Networks. Symmetric Routing: Ensure traffic follows symmetric paths (i.e., outbound and inbound flows pass through the same firewall instance). Avoid asymmetric routing, which can cause stateful firewalls to drop return traffic. Leverage BGP with Azure Route Server where supported, to simplify route propagation across hub-and-spoke topologies. : Azure UDR directing all traffic from a Spoke VNET to the Firewall IP Address Policies NAT Rules: Configure DNAT (Destination NAT) rules to publish applications securely to the Internet. Use SNAT (Source NAT) to mask private IPs when workloads access external resources. Security Rules: Define granular allow/deny rules for both north-south traffic (Internet to VNet) and east-west traffic (between Virtual Networks or subnets). Ensure least privilege by only allowing required ports, protocols, and destinations. Segmentation: Apply firewall policies to separate workloads, environments, and tenants (e.g., Production vs. Development). Enforce compliance by isolating workloads subject to regulatory standards (PCI-DSS, HIPAA, GDPR). Application-Aware Policies: Many vendors support Layer 7 inspection, enabling controls based on applications, users, and content (not just IP/port). Integrate with identity providers (Azure AD, LDAP, etc.) for user-based firewall rules. : Example Configuration of NAT Rules on a Palo Alto External Firewall Load Balancers Internal Load Balancer (ILB): Use ILBs for east-west traffic inspection between Virtual Networks or subnets. Ensures that traffic between applications always passes through the firewall, regardless of origin. External Load Balancer (ELB): Use ELBs for north-south traffic, handling Internet ingress and egress. Required in Active-Active firewall clusters to distribute traffic evenly across firewall nodes. Other Configurations: Configure health probes for firewall instances to ensure faulty nodes are automatically bypassed. Validate Floating IP configuration on Load Balancing Rules according to the respective vendor recommendations. Identity Integration Azure Service Principals: In Active-Passive deployments, configure service principals to enable automated IP reassignment during failover. This ensures continuous service availability without manual intervention. Role-Based Access Control (RBAC): Integrate firewall management with Azure RBAC to control who can deploy, manage, or modify firewall configurations. SIEM Integration: Stream logs to Azure Monitor, Sentinel, or third-party SIEMs for auditing, monitoring, and incident response. Licensing Pay-As-You-Go (PAYG): Licenses are bundled into the VM cost when deploying from the Azure Marketplace. Best for short-term projects, PoCs, or variable workloads. Bring Your Own License (BYOL): Enterprises can apply existing contracts and licenses with vendors to Azure deployments. Often more cost-effective for large-scale, long-term deployments. Hybrid Licensing Models: Some vendors support license mobility from on-premises to Azure, reducing duplication of costs. 5. Common Challenges Third-party firewalls in Azure provide strong security controls, but organizations often face practical challenges in day-to-day operations: Misconfiguration Incorrect UDRs, route tables, or NAT rules can cause dropped traffic or bypassed inspection. Asymmetric routing is a frequent issue in hub-and-spoke topologies, leading to session drops in stateful firewalls. Performance Bottlenecks Firewall throughput depends on the VM SKU (CPU, memory, NIC limits). Under-sizing causes latency and packet loss, while over-sizing adds unnecessary cost. Continuous monitoring and vendor sizing guides are essential. Failover Downtime Active-Passive models introduce brief service interruptions while IPs and routes are reassigned. Some sessions may be lost even with state sync, making Active-Active more attractive for mission-critical workloads. Backup & Recovery Azure Backup doesn’t support vendor firewall OS. Configurations must be exported and stored externally (e.g., storage accounts, repos, or vendor management tools). Without proper backups, recovery from failures or misconfigurations can be slow. Azure Platform Limits on Connections Azure imposes a per-VM cap of 250,000 active connections, regardless of what the firewall vendor appliance supports. This means even if an appliance is designed for millions of sessions, it will be constrained by Azure’s networking fabric. Hitting this cap can lead to unexplained traffic drops despite available CPU/memory. The workaround is to scale out horizontally (multiple firewall VMs behind a load balancer) and carefully monitor connection distribution. 6. Best Practices for Third-Party Firewall Deployments To maximize security, reliability, and performance of third-party firewalls in Azure, organizations should follow these best practices: Deploy in Availability Zones: Place firewall instances across different Availability Zones to ensure regional resilience and minimize downtime in case of zone-level failures. Prefer Active-Active for Critical Workloads: Where zero downtime is a requirement, use Active-Active clusters behind an Azure Load Balancer. Active-Passive can be simpler but introduces failover delays. Use Dedicated Subnets for Interfaces: Separate trust, untrust, HA, and management NICs into their own subnets. This enforces segmentation, simplifies route management, and reduces misconfiguration risk. Apply Least Privilege Policies: Always start with a deny-all baseline, then allow only necessary applications, ports, and protocols. Regularly review rules to avoid policy sprawl. Standardize Naming & Tagging: Adopt consistent naming conventions and resource tags for firewalls, subnets, route tables, and policies. This aids troubleshooting, automation, and compliance reporting. Validate End-to-End Traffic Flows: Test both north-south (Internet ↔ VNet) and east-west (VNet ↔ VNet/subnet) flows after deployment. Use tools like Azure Network Watcher and vendor traffic logs to confirm inspection. Plan for Scalability: Monitor throughput, CPU, memory, and session counts to anticipate when scale-out or higher VM SKUs are needed. Some vendors support autoscaling clusters for bursty workloads. Maintain Firmware & Threat Signatures: Regularly update the firewall’s software, patches, and threat intelligence feeds to ensure protection against emerging vulnerabilities and attacks. Automate updates where possible. Conclusion Third-party firewalls remain a core building block in many enterprise Azure Landing Zones. They provide the deep security controls and operational familiarity enterprises need, while Azure provides the scalable infrastructure to host them. By following the hub-and-spoke architecture, carefully planning deployment models, and enforcing best practices for routing, redundancy, monitoring, and backup, organizations can ensure a secure and reliable network foundation in Azure.Extending Layer-2 (VXLAN) networks over Layer-3 IP network
Introduction Virtual Extensible LAN (VXLAN) is a network virtualization technology that encapsulates Layer-2 Ethernet frames inside Layer-3 UDP/IP packets. In essence, VXLAN creates a logical Layer-2 overlay network on top of an IP network, allowing Ethernet segments (VLANs) or underlay IP packet to be stretched across routed infrastructures. A key advantage is scale: VXLAN uses a 24-bit segment ID (VNI) instead of the 12-bit VLAN ID, supporting around 16 million isolated networks versus the 4,094 VLAN limit. This makes VXLAN ideal for large cloud data centers and multi-tenant environments that demand many distinct network segments. VXLAN’s Layer-2 overlays bring flexibility and mobility to modern architectures. Because VXLAN tunnels can span multiple Layer-3 domains, organizations can extend VLANs across different sites or subnets – for example, creating a tunnel that extends over two data centers over an IP WAN as long as underlying tunnel IP is reachable. This enables seamless workload mobility and disaster recovery: also helps virtual machines or applications can move between physical locations without changing IP addresses, since they remain in the same virtual L2 network. The overlay approach also decouples the logical network from the physical underlay, meaning you can run your familiar L2 segments over any IP routing infrastructure while leveraging features like equal-cost multi-path (ECMP) load balancing and avoiding large spanning-tree domains. In short, VXLAN combines the best of both worlds – the simplicity of Layer-2 adjacency with the scalability of Layer-3 routing – making it a foundational tool in cloud networking and software-defined data centers. Layer-2 VXLAN overlay on a Layer-3 IP network allows customers or edge networks to stretch Ethernet (VLAN) segments across geographically distributed sites using an IP backbone. This approach preserves VLAN tags end-to-end and enables flexible segmentation across locations without needing an extend or continuous Layer-2 network in the core. It also helps hide or avoid the underlying IP network complexities. However, it’s crucial to account for MTU overhead (VXLAN adds ~50 bytes of header) so that the overlay’s VLAN MTU is set smaller than the underlay IP MTU – otherwise fragmentation or packet loss can occur. Additionally, because VXLAN doesn’t inherently signal link status, implementing Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) on the VXLAN interfaces provides rapid detection of neighbor failures, ensuring quick rerouting or recovery when a tunnel endpoint goes down. VXLAN overlay use case and benefits VXLAN is a standard protocol (IETF RFC 7348) that can encapsulate Layer-2 Ethernet frames into Layer-3 UDP/IP packets. By doing so, VXLAN creates an L2 overlay network on top of an L3 underlay. The VXLAN tunnel endpoints (VTEPs), which can be routers, switches, or hosts, wrap the original Ethernet frame (including its VLAN tag) with an IP/UDP header plus a VXLAN header, then send it through the IP network. The default UDP port for VXLAN is 4789. This mechanism offers several key benefits: Preserves VLAN Tags and L2 Segmentation: The entire Ethernet frame is carried across, so the original VLAN ID (802.1Q tag) is maintained end-to-end through the tunnel. Even if an extra tag is added at the ingress for local tunneling, the customer’s inner VLAN tag remains intact across the overlay. This means a VLAN defined at one site will be recognized at the other site as the same VLAN, enabling seamless L2 adjacency. In practice, VXLAN can transport multiple VLANs transparently by mapping each VLAN or service to a VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI). Flexible network segmentation at scale: VXLAN uses a 24-bit VNI (VXLAN Network ID), supporting about 16 million distinct segments, far exceeding the 4094 VLAN limit of traditional 802.1Q networks. This gives architects freedom to create many isolated L2 overlay networks (for multi-tenant scenarios, application tiers, etc.) over a shared IP infrastructure. Geographically distributed sites can share the same VLANs and broadcast domain via VXLAN, without the WAN routers needing any VLAN configurations. The IP/MPLS core only sees routed VXLAN packets, not individual VLANs, simplifying the underlay configuration. No need for end-to-end VLANs in underlay: Traditional solutions to extend L2 might rely on methods like MPLS/VPLS or long ethernet trunk lines, which often require configuring VLANs across the WAN and can’t scale well. In a VXLAN overlay, the intermediate L3 network remains unaware of customer VLANs, and you don’t need to trunk VLANs across the WAN. Each site’s VTEP encapsulates and decapsulates traffic, so the core routers/switches just forward IP/UDP packets. This isolation improves scalability and stability—core devices don’t carry massive MAC address tables or STP domains from all sites. It also means the underlay can use robust IP routing (OSPF, BGP, etc.) with ECMP, rather than extending spanning-tree across sites. In short, VXLAN lets you treat the WAN like an IP cloud while still maintaining Layer-2 connectivity between specific endpoints. Multi-path and resilience: Since the overlay runs on IP, it naturally leverages IP routing features. ECMP in the underlay, for example, can load-balance VXLAN traffic across multiple links, something not possible with a single bridged VLAN spanning the WAN. The encapsulated traffic’s UDP header even provides entropy (via source port hashing) to help load-sharing on multiple paths. Furthermore, if one underlay path fails, routing protocols can reroute VXLAN packets via alternate paths without disrupting the logical L2 network. This increases reliability and bandwidth usage compared to a Layer-2 only approach. Diagram: VXLAN Overlay Across a Layer-3 WAN – Below is a simplified illustration of two sites using a VXLAN overlay. “Site A” and “Site B” each have a local VLAN (e.g. VLAN 100) that they want to bridge across an IP WAN. The VTEPs at each site encapsulate the Layer-2 frames into VXLAN/UDP packets and send them over the IP network. Inside the tunnel, the original VLAN tag is preserved. In this example, a BFD session (red dashed line) runs between the VTEPs to monitor the tunnel’s health, as explained later. Figure 1: Two sites (A and B) extend “VLAN 100” across an IP WAN using a VXLAN tunnel. The inner VLAN tag is preserved over the L3 network. A BFD keepalive (every 900ms) runs between the VXLAN endpoints to detect failures. The practical effect of this design is that devices in Site A and Site B can be in the same VLAN and IP subnet, broadcast to each other, etc., even though they are connected by a routed network. For example, if Site A has a machine in VLAN 100 with IP 10.1.100.5/24 and Site B has another in VLAN 100 with IP 10.1.100.10/24, they can communicate as if on one LAN – ARP, switches, and VLAN tagging function normally across the tunnel. MTU and overhead considerations One critical consideration for deploying VXLAN overlays is handling the increased packet size due to encapsulation. A VXLAN packet includes additional headers on top of the original Ethernet frame: an outer IP header, UDP header, and VXLAN header (plus an outer Ethernet header on the WAN interface). This encapsulation adds approximately 50 bytes of overhead to each packet (for IPv4; about 70 bytes for IPv6). In practical terms, if your original Ethernet frame was the typical 1500-byte payload (1518 bytes with Ethernet header and CRC, or 1522 with a VLAN tag), the VXLAN-encapsulated version will be ~1550 bytes. **The underlying IP network *must* accommodate these larger frames**, or you’ll get fragmentation or drops. Many network links by default only support 1500-byte MTUs, so without adjustments, a VXLAN carrying a full-sized VLAN packet would exceed that. Though modern networks runs jumbo frames (~9k), if the underlying encapsulated packet frames exceeds 8950 bytes it can create problems like control-plane failure (ex BGP session tear down) or fragmentation for data packet causing out of order packet. Solution: Either raise the MTU on the underlay network or enforce a lower MTU on the overlay. Network architects generally prefer to increase the IP MTU of the core so the overlay can carry standard 1500-byte Ethernet frames unfragmented. For example, one vendor’s guide recommends configuring at least a 1550-byte MTU on all network segments to account for VXLAN’s ~50B overhead. In enterprise environments, it’s common to use “baby jumbo” frames (e.g. 1600 bytes) or full jumbo (9000 bytes) in the datacenter/WAN to accommodate various tunneling overheads. If increasing the underlay MTU is not possible (say, over an ISP that only supports 1500), then the VLAN MTU on the overlay should be reduced – for instance, set the VLAN interface MTU to 1450 bytes, so that even with the 50B VXLAN overhead the outer packet remains 1500 bytes. This prevents any IP fragmentation. Why Fragmentation is Undesirable: VXLAN itself doesn’t include any fragmentation mechanism; it relies on the underlay IP to fragment if needed. But IP fragmentation can harm performance and some devices/drop policies might simply drop oversized VXLAN packets instead of fragmenting. In fact, certain implementations don’t support VXLAN fragmentation or Path MTU discovery on tunnels. The safe approach is to ensure no encapsulated packet ever exceeds the physical MTU. That means planning your MTUs end-to-end: make the core links slightly larger than the largest expected overlay packet. Diagram: VXLAN Encapsulation and MTU Layering – The figure below illustrates the components of a VXLAN-encapsulated frame and how they contribute to packet size. The original Ethernet frame (yellow) with a VLAN tag is wrapped with a new outer Ethernet, IP, UDP, and VXLAN header . The extra headers add ~50 bytes. If the inner (yellow) frame was, say, 1500 bytes of payload plus 18 bytes Ethernet overhead, the outer packet becomes ~1568 bytes (including new headers and FCS). In practice the old FCS is replaced by a new one, so the net growth is ~50 bytes. The key takeaway: the IP transport must handle the total size. Figure 2: Layered view of a VXLAN-encapsulated packet (not to scale). The original Ethernet frame with VLAN tag (yellow) is encapsulated by outer headers (blue/green/red/gray), resulting in ~50 bytes of overhead for IPv4. The outer packet must fit within the WAN MTU (e.g. 1518B if inner frame is 1468B) to avoid fragmentation. In summary, ensure the IP underlay’s MTU is configured to accommodate the VXLAN overhead. If using standard 1500-byte MTUs on the WAN, set your overlay interfaces (VLAN SVIs or bridge MTUs) to around 1450 bytes. In many cases if possible, raising the WAN MTU to 1600 or using jumbo frames throughout is the best practice to provide ample headroom. Always test your end-to-end path with ping sweeps (e.g. using the DF-bit and varying sizes) to verify that the encapsulated packets aren’t being dropped due to MTU limits. Neighbor failure detection with BFD One challenge with overlays like VXLAN is that the logical link lacks immediate visibility into physical link status. If one end of the VXLAN tunnel goes down or the path fails, the other end’s VXLAN interface may remain “up” (since its own underlay interface is still up), potentially blackholing traffic until higher-level protocols notice. VXLAN itself doesn’t send continuous “link alive” messages to check the remote VTEP’s reachability. To address this, network engineers deploy BFD on VXLAN endpoints. BFD is a lightweight protocol specifically designed for rapid failure detection independent of media or routing protocol. It works by two endpoints periodically sending very fast, small hello packets to each other (often every 50ms or less). If a few consecutive hellos are missed, BFD declares the peer down – often within <1 second, versus several seconds (or tens of seconds) with conventional detection. Applying BFD to VXLAN: Many router and switch vendors support running BFD over a VXLAN tunnel or on the VTEP’s loopback adjacencies. When enabled, the two VTEPs will continuously ping each other at the configured interval. If the VXLAN tunnel fails (e.g. one site loses connectivity), BFD on the surviving side will quickly detect the loss of response. This can then trigger corrective actions: for instance, the BFD can generate logs for the logical interface or notify the routing protocol to withdraw routes via that tunnel. In designs with redundant tunnels or redundant VTEPs, BFD helps achieve sub-second failover – traffic can switch to a backup VXLAN tunnel almost immediately upon a primary failure. Even in a single-tunnel scenario, BFD gives an early alert to the network operator or applications that the link is down, rather than quietly dropping packets. Example: If Site A and Site B have two VXLAN tunnels (primary and backup) connecting them, running BFD on each tunnel interface means that if the primary’s path goes down, BFD at Site A and B will detect it within milliseconds and inform the routing control-plane. The network can then shift traffic to the backup tunnel right away. Without BFD, the network might have to wait for a timeout (e.g. OSPF dead interval or even ARP timeouts) to realize the primary tunnel is dead, causing a noticeable outage. BFD is protocol-agnostic – it can integrate with any routing protocols. For VXLAN, it’s purely a monitoring mechanism: lightweight and with minimal overhead on the tunnel. Its messages are small UDP packets (often on port 3784/3785) that can be sourced from the VTEP’s IP. The frequency is configurable based on how fast you need detection vs. how much overhead you can afford; common timers are 300ms with 3x multiplier (detect in ~1s) for moderate speeds, or even 50ms with 3x (150ms detection) for high-speed failover requirements. Bottom line: Implementing BFD dramatically improves the reliability of a VXLAN-based L2 extension. Since VXLAN tunnels don’t automatically signal if a neighbor is unreachable, BFD acts as the heartbeat. Many platforms even allow BFD to directly influence interface state (for example, the VXLAN interface can be tied to go down when BFD fails) so that any higher-level protocols (like VRRP, dynamic routing, etc.) immediately react to the loss. This prevents lengthy outages and ensures the overlay network remains robust even over a complex WAN. Conclusion Deploying a Layer-2 VXLAN overlay across a Layer-3 WAN unlocks powerful capabilities: you can keep using familiar VLAN-based segmentation across sites while taking advantage of an IP network’s scalability and resilience. It’s a vendor-neutral solution widely supported in modern networking gear. By preserving VLAN tags over the tunnel, VXLAN makes it possible to stretch subnets and broadcast domains to remote locations for workloads that require Layer-2 adjacency. With the huge VNI address space, segmentation can scale for large enterprises or cloud providers well beyond traditional VLAN limits. However, to realize these benefits successfully, careful attention must be paid to MTU and link monitoring. Always accommodate the ~50-byte VXLAN overhead by configuring proper MTUs (or adjusting the overlay’s MTU) – this prevents fragmentation and packet loss that can be very hard to troubleshoot after deployment. And since a VXLAN tunnel’s health isn’t apparent to switches/hosts by default, use tools like BFD to add fast failure detection, thereby avoiding black holes and improving convergence times. In doing so, you ensure that your stretched network is not only functional but also resilient and performant. By following these guidelines – leveraging VXLAN for flexible L2 overlays, minding the MTU, and bolstering with BFD – network engineers can build a robust, wide-area Layer-2 extension that behaves nearly indistinguishably from a local LAN, yet rides on the efficiency and reliability of a Layer-3 IP backbone. Enjoy the best of both worlds: VLANs without borders, and an IP network without unnecessary constraints. References: VXLAN technical overview and best practices from vendor documentation and industry sources have been used to ensure accuracy in the above explanations. This ensures the blog is grounded in real-world proven knowledge while remaining vendor-neutral and applicable to a broad audience of cloud and network professionals.
Azure SDK python client to Azure iothub over HAproxy (SSL handshake failure)
I am trying to fix an IP address for Azure Iothub via Load Balencer and HAproxy as suggested in this https://medium.com/cloudzone/azure-iot-hub-how-to-expose-it-using-fixed-ip-and-create-a-more-secure-environment-along-the-way-988661a8f67a: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gyQ9j.png I have configured the HAproxy as suggested to pass the SSL handshake to the server: global log /dev/log local0 log /dev/log local1 notice chroot /var/lib/haproxy stats socket /run/haproxy/admin.sock mode 660 level admin expose-fd listeners stats timeout 30s user haproxy group haproxy daemon # Default SSL material locations ca-base /etc/ssl/certs crt-base /etc/ssl/private # Default ciphers to use on SSL-enabled listening sockets. # For more information, see ciphers(1SSL). This list is from: # https://hynek.me/articles/hardening-your-web-servers-ssl-ciphers/ # An alternative list with additional directives can be obtained from # https://mozilla.github.io/server-side-tls/ssl-config-generator/?server=haproxy ssl-default-bind-ciphers ECDH+AESGCM:DH+AESGCM:ECDH+AES256:DH+AES256:ECDH+AES128:DH+AES:RSA+AESGCM:RSA+AES:!aNULL:!MD5:!DSS ssl-default-bind-options no-sslv3 defaults log global mode http option httplog option dontlognull timeout connect 5000 timeout client 50000 timeout server 50000 errorfile 400 /etc/haproxy/errors/400.http errorfile 403 /etc/haproxy/errors/403.http errorfile 408 /etc/haproxy/errors/408.http errorfile 500 /etc/haproxy/errors/500.http errorfile 502 /etc/haproxy/errors/502.http errorfile 503 /etc/haproxy/errors/503.http errorfile 504 /etc/haproxy/errors/504.http frontend haproxy_iothub bind *:8883 bind *:443 bind *:5671 mode tcp default_backend iothub backend iothub mode tcp server iothub [Server URL]:8883 check server iothub [Server URL]:443 check server iothub [Server URL]:5671 check To simulate the device, I used Azure V2 SDK (azure-iot-device) and defined a proxy option and created a client from a connection string. proxy_opts = ProxyOptions(proxy_type=socks.HTTP, proxy_addr="Proxy_ IP", proxy_port=8883) device_client = IoTHubDeviceClient.create_from_connection_string("IOTHUB_DEVICE_CONNECTION_STRING", websockets=True, proxy_options=proxy_opts ) I was not able to reach the iothub, I tried debugging the library to get more information and it turned out that the blocking occurs due to a general proxy error ("connection closed unexpectedly") in _negotiate_HTTP. socks.HTTPError :504 : Gateway Time-out (in socks.py) HAproxy logging showes : Oct 18 08:48:37 vmss2xigg000000 haproxy[27470]: *..:59000 [18/Oct/2021:08:48:37.451] haproxy_iothub iothub/iothub1 1/1/38 0 -- 1/1/0/0/0 0/0 Any help much appreciated HA-Proxy version 1.8.8-1ubuntu0.11 Azure-iot-device Version 2.8.0
