How to Secure Azure Databricks without Public Exposure using WAF + Private Endpoints
This blog outlines a Zero Trust–aligned architecture for securing Azure Databricks using Application Gateway (WAF) and Private Endpoints within a Hub-Spoke network model. Enables a true Zero Trust model, ensuring: No direct exposure of Databricks Full traffic inspection Compliance-ready secure access for both internal and external users
From Features to Flow: How Real-World Adoption Reshaped the Azure Architecture Diagram Builder
In May, I introduced the open-source Azure Architecture Diagram Builder as a way to move from a natural-language prompt to an Azure architecture diagram, cost estimate, Well-Architected assessment, and deployment guidance. In July, I shared how the project had become agent-ready through Model Context Protocol (MCP). Those posts described what the tool could do. The more interesting story came next: what happened when people actually used it. As adoption grew, the central product question changed. It was no longer simply, Can AI generate an Azure architecture? It became: How do we help an architect choose how to begin, improve a result without losing their work, validate it responsibly, and turn it into something another person can use? That question reshaped the Azure Architecture Diagram Builder from a collection of capabilities into a guided workflow: Create → Refine → Validate & Improve → Share or Build This post explains what we learned, what changed in the product, and why the hardest part of AI-assisted architecture is not the first diagram. It is everything that comes after it. TL;DR. Growing adoption created a feedback loop. Aggregate usage showed that people moved beyond generation into validation, recommendations, exports, and deployment guidance. Privacy-safe feedback revealed recurring problems with diagram integrity, preservation of human edits, cost credibility, export quality, and validation continuity. Those signals led to a four-stage architecture journey that keeps human judgment and professional review at the center. The same lesson now shapes agent access and the next product boundary: distinguish logical proposals from evidence-backed physical architecture. Adoption created a product feedback loop As of August 5, 2026, the first two Azure Architecture Blog articles had accumulated approximately 12,100 combined views. A refreshed view of deduplicated application telemetry through August 13 recorded: Activity Aggregate count Architecture generation and refinement events 5,023 Well-Architected validations 960 Recommendations applied 175 Diagram exports 2,020 Deployment guides generated 212 As of August 13, the public repository had reached 45 stars and 14 forks. In GitHub’s current rolling 14-day window, the repository recorded 277 unique visitors and 67 unique cloners. These numbers measure different things and should not be added together. Article views are not unique readers. Application activity uses anonymous telemetry identifiers, not verified people. GitHub traffic is a rolling aggregate window. The signals are useful because of the pattern they reveal, not because they can be combined into one headline user count. Activity also accelerated during the period following the second article. Compared with the May 19–July 9 baseline, daily activity from July 10 through August 13 was approximately 7.0 times higher for architecture generation and refinement, 5.6 times higher for Well-Architected validation, and 5.9 times higher for recommendation application. The timing coincided with publication; it does not prove that the article alone caused the growth. The important product lesson was simpler: people were not stopping after the first diagram. They were testing alternatives, validating designs, applying recommendations, exporting artifacts, and asking how to move toward implementation. Generation was the entry point, not the complete job. The first guided-journey signals reinforce the need for more than one starting path. Through August 13, the new journey instrumentation recorded 880 interactions from 174 anonymous identifiers across 241 sessions. At first start, structured brief/image generation and Guided Chat were selected at almost the same frequency (158 and 156 events), while template and live-Azure import added another 68 selections. These are interaction counts, not unique people or conversion rates, and the window is still too early to claim that the journey improves completion. They are enough to show that architecture work does not begin in one uniform way. In-product Start Here panel showing the four-stage Azure Architecture Diagram Builder journey: Create, Refine, Validate and Improve, and Share or Build. Figure 1. The in-product Start Here panel explains one complete architecture loop. The stages are recommendations, not gates, and direct access to every tool remains available. Stage 1: Create — make the starting choice explicit As capabilities accumulated, the first screen became harder to interpret. Architecture Chat and structured generation were both useful, but they competed for attention. Importing an existing architecture was available, yet easy to miss. The new starting experience makes three paths explicit: Starting path Best suited for Guided Chat Exploring requirements conversationally and refining them over multiple turns Generate Diagram Providing a structured brief or image and producing a first architecture quickly Import Existing Opening an existing architecture or infrastructure artifact for analysis and editing This is not a marketing landing page placed in front of the tool. It is a small decision point inside the authoring experience. Once a path is selected, the user lands on the real canvas. The distinction matters because different architecture tasks begin with different levels of certainty. Sometimes the architect knows the target services. Sometimes the problem needs discovery. Sometimes the architecture already exists and the work is to understand or improve it. The product should acknowledge those differences instead of pretending every design starts with a perfect prompt. Start chooser presenting Guided Chat, Generate Diagram, and Import Existing as three equal entry paths. Figure 2. Three starting paths reflect three different architecture situations: discovery, structured generation, and analysis of an existing design. Stage 2: Refine — preserve human work One of the clearest feedback themes was not about adding another AI capability. It was about preventing AI from casually undoing human effort. An architect might spend time arranging a one-page diagram for a review, resizing groups, moving labels, or emphasizing a specific boundary. A subsequent AI refinement could improve the service selection while disrupting that carefully prepared layout. The design principle that emerged was straightforward: AI acceleration should preserve deliberate human work by default. Refinement now retains existing node positions, group geometry, sizes, and viewport context whenever possible. The model can change the architecture without treating every turn as permission to redraw the entire document. The same principle applies beyond geometry: Preserve the prior validation result when recommendations change the architecture. Preserve the active light or dark theme in exported artifacts. Preserve the distinction between the authoring canvas and the presentation deliverable. Preserve user-configured pricing assumptions rather than replacing them with one fixed estimate. This is a broader lesson for AI-assisted tools. A generated result is not the only source of value. The edits, judgments, and communication choices a person adds afterward are part of the artifact too. Before-and-after AADB canvases showing an AI refinement that adds Azure Front Door and WAF while retaining the positions of eight existing services and the anchors of four existing groups. Figure 3. In this controlled synthetic refinement, all eight existing service positions and four group anchors remained unchanged. The containing Application group expanded to accommodate the new edge tier, so preservation does not imply that every group dimension stays fixed. Quality is structural, not only visual A diagram can look polished while still being architecturally confusing. Early feedback exposed cases where a generated service appeared disconnected because a model referenced a display name instead of the service identifier used by the canvas. The correction was not another prompt instruction alone. The application now resolves connection endpoints across identifiers, normalized service names, and service-type aliases. It repairs valid edges, drops invalid or self-referential edges, detects remaining orphan nodes, and records aggregate integrity signals. That creates a more useful definition of diagram quality: Are the services connected as intended? Were any generated edges repaired or dropped? Are there orphaned nodes? Did refinement preserve the existing layout? Did an architecture change receive a fresh validation? Visual polish still matters, especially when an artifact leaves the editor. But structural integrity gives the product something deterministic to test and monitor. Stage 3: Validate & Improve — treat validation as a lifecycle The Azure Well-Architected Framework is most useful when validation becomes iterative rather than ceremonial. The Diagram Builder can assess a proposed design across the five Well-Architected pillars, surface findings, and apply selected recommendations. But that workflow exposed an important state-management problem: when the architecture changed, the prior validation result disappeared along with the obvious route back to revalidation. The updated experience keeps the previous report, marks it Revalidate Needed, and makes clear that the score describes an earlier state of the architecture. A new validation replaces it only after the updated design has been assessed. This distinction prevents a stale score from looking current. It also clarifies what an architecture-level assessment can and cannot prove. A diagram may show that a WAF, cache, backup service, or secondary region exists. It usually cannot prove that purge protection, diagnostic routing, encryption settings, role assignments, health probes, or failover policies are configured correctly. That is why validation findings need to distinguish between: Pattern-level gaps — missing or misplaced architectural components Configuration-level gaps — required settings that must be verified in Infrastructure as Code or the deployed environment Generated scores and recommendations help architects review a design; they do not replace an Azure Well-Architected Review, security review, deployment validation, or professional judgment. Validation result retained after architecture recommendations are applied, with a Revalidate Needed status and action. Figure 4. Architecture changes make a previous validation historical, not useless. The result remains available while the interface clearly asks for a fresh validation. Stage 4: Share or Build — design for the artifact’s destination The editing canvas and the final deliverable serve different purposes. Canvas dots, handles, navigation controls, and selection states help during authoring. They can make an exported diagram feel unfinished. The Diagram Builder now separates those concerns with Plain, Dots, and Grid export backgrounds while preserving the active light or dark theme. The same AADB architecture shown first on the editing canvas with the export menu open and then as the resulting Plain PNG without authoring controls. Figure 5. Authoring and delivery are different contexts. The upper view shows the editable canvas and its real export controls; the lower view is the Plain PNG produced from that same canvas, without editing chrome. Cost language is deliberately qualified. Azure services often combine fixed, usage-based, and configuration-dependent charges. A baseline that includes six numerically priced services but excludes 20 usage-based items is not the total cost of the architecture. The output identifies those exclusions rather than treating missing values as zero. The final stage also includes deployment guides and Infrastructure as Code. Here, honesty about artifact coverage is essential. A generated Bicep file may be a useful starter while still omitting private endpoints, diagnostic settings, failover configuration, or service-specific resources. The artifact should state what it implements, what remains conceptual, and whether Azure Resource Manager validation passed. AI-generated diagrams, costs, validation results, deployment guides, and Infrastructure as Code should all be reviewed and validated before production use. The same journey now extends to agents The MCP server introduced in the previous article makes the Diagram Builder available to agent experiences such as Microsoft Scout. The four-stage journey provides a useful way to think about agent orchestration too: Import or create one canonical architecture. Refine it without silently changing the intended topology. Validate it, apply supported improvements, and revalidate. Render or generate artifacts with explicit coverage and limitations. The current MCP surface exposes 12 tools, three resources, and three reusable prompts. It can normalize an existing architecture, validate and harden it deterministically, estimate regional costs from a dated pricing snapshot, render presentation/technical/cost views, and generate Bicep, Terraform, and deployment guidance. The calling agent still owns orchestration and reasoning; the MCP server is intended to remain a deterministic architecture capability, not a second hidden agent. The native MCP renderer can project one canonical architecture into three communication profiles: Presentation emphasizes the primary request path, reduces supporting labels, and removes pricing. Technical preserves complete connection detail for engineering inspection. Cost retains the focused composition while adding service-level pricing assumptions, a fixed-priced baseline, and explicit exclusions. These are MCP-generated SVG views, not Blueprint diagrams or screenshots of the editable web canvas. The services, connections, and groups remain the same; only the information treatment changes. The AADB MCP renderer projecting the same canonical architecture into presentation, technical, and cost SVG profiles. Figure 6. Native AADB MCP output from one 8-service, 9-connection, 4-group architecture. Presentation prioritizes the story, Technical exposes connection detail, and Cost foregrounds pricing assumptions and exclusions. Recent work on the MCP renderer added purpose-built presentation, technical, and cost profiles. More importantly, testing agent-generated artifacts reinforced an accountability principle: a polished diagram and a compiled Bicep file do not prove deployability. An agent workflow should report whether topology changed, whether validation improved, which services are represented only conceptually, and whether the generated IaC passed Azure preflight. That is more useful than an unsupported claim that a design is production-ready. Trust also includes the tool boundary itself. The hosted MCP endpoints now require a bearer token for real session operations; missing or incorrect credentials are rejected. A shared token is appropriate for the current controlled integration, but it is not the end state for enterprise multi-user access. Entra ID/OAuth, per-client authorization, rotation, and revocation remain future hardening work. Microsoft Scout response after an authenticated Azure Architecture Diagram Builder MCP workflow, showing the tools used, initial and final validation scores, cost scope, Bicep classification, rendered architecture, artifact links, coverage gaps, and no-deployment warning. Figure 7. The guided lifecycle extends beyond the web application. In this synthetic Scout run with GPT-5.6 Sol, the agent used authenticated AADB MCP tools to validate, harden, cost, render, and generate starter artifacts while explicitly reporting coverage gaps and that nothing was deployed. Learning from adoption without identifying people Product learning does not require reconstructing individual identities. The findings behind this article use aggregate, deduplicated application telemetry, public article counters, public repository totals, and paraphrased feedback themes. They do not correlate Application Insights identifiers, feedback records, GitHub accounts, or email addresses. Written feedback remains submittable without contact information. When someone explicitly opts into follow-up, the email address is stored with the feedback record in Cosmos DB and is not sent to normal product telemetry. The current 180-day expiry field is a retention marker; automated deletion must be implemented and verified before describing that retention period as enforced. Those boundaries matter for both product design and public writing: Aggregate activity rather than profiling individuals. Paraphrase themes rather than publishing comments without permission. Keep optional contact consent separate from telemetry. Avoid presenting anonymous identifiers as confirmed people. Avoid claiming that publication timing proves acquisition causality. This is not a claim of legal compliance. It is a product discipline: collect less, preserve user agency, and make only the claims the evidence supports. What changed The guided journey is the visible result, but the deeper change is how the project now evaluates progress. Earlier question Better question Did the model generate a diagram? Did it generate a connected and understandable architecture? Did the user click Validate? Was the current architecture validated, and was it revalidated after changes? Did export start? Did a professional artifact finish generating successfully? Does the IaC compile? What does it actually implement, and does Azure preflight pass? How many features exist? Can an architect understand the next useful step? The model portfolio continued to evolve as well. The production selector now contains 15 configured entries, including MAI-Thinking-1 (Public Preview). But the more consequential changes in this article are deliberately model-independent: preserve human work, keep state and provenance explicit, qualify generated artifacts, and authenticate the tools agents can call. The goal is not to remove flexibility. Architects can still open any tool directly, rearrange the canvas, reject recommendations, change pricing assumptions, or export at any point. The goal is to make the workflow coherent without pretending architecture itself is linear. The next boundary: logical versus physical architecture Recent feedback points to a harder problem than adding another model or export format. Architects working with private Azure AI landing zones need to distinguish shared platform resources from project-owned resources, preserve VNet and subnet boundaries, and reason about CIDRs, NSGs, route tables, private endpoints, DNS, and managed identities. The current Topology mode can show services and relationships, but it should not imply exact physical fidelity when those facts are absent. A useful logical diagram answers what exists and how it interacts. A physical or low-level design must answer where it is deployed, how it is isolated, and which values came from evidence. That is the next technical direction I am exploring: an evidence-aware Physical Architecture view backed by deterministic reconstruction from Terraform plan/state, ARM, or a live Azure inventory. Exact fields would be labeled as observed or resolved; AI suggestions would remain explicitly proposed; unsupported or missing inputs would be reported instead of silently invented. This capability is not shipped today, and it will require its own schema, validation rules, layout, security review, and evaluation set. That distinction matters. The lesson from adoption is not to put every architecture concern into one crowded canvas. It is to make each artifact’s purpose and evidence boundary clear. Try it, challenge it, help shape what comes next The Azure Architecture Diagram Builder remains open source, and the live experience is available today: Live app: https://aka.ms/diagram-builder Source code: github.com/Arturo-Quiroga-MSFT/azure-architecture-diagram-builder Getting started: Documentation and deployment guidance The next phase is to measure whether the guided journey helps people complete the full loop, especially recommendation-to-revalidation and artifact-generation success. In parallel, I am beginning the narrower physical-architecture investigation described above. Both efforts will use aggregate signals, reviewed fixtures, and sufficiently large cohorts rather than individual journey reconstruction. Try the workflow with a real architecture problem. Tell me where the handoffs are unclear, where the diagram loses intent, or where an artifact claims more than it implements. Those are the gaps worth fixing next. Measurement note: Article views are rounded public counters observed August 5, 2026. Application figures use deduplicated retained telemetry through August 13 and anonymous identifiers. GitHub totals and rolling 14-day traffic were observed August 13. The comparison windows are May 19–July 9 and July 10–August 13. These signals have different populations and must not be added together. Timing comparisons show concurrent activity, not causal attribution.From Prompt to Production: Building Azure Architecture Diagrams with AI
Author: Arturo Quiroga, Senior Partner Solutions Architect — Microsoft Cloud architects spend significant time translating ideas into architecture diagrams. They toggle between Visio, draw.io, pricing calculators, and documentation. According to the 2024 Stack Overflow Developer Survey, 61% of developers spend more than 30 minutes a day searching for answers or solutions, time lost to context-switching rather than design. What if you could describe your architecture in plain English and get a diagram, cost estimate, and deployment guide in minutes? The Challenge: Fragmented Architecture Workflows Designing Azure architectures today typically involves multiple disconnected steps: Sketch the architecture in a diagramming tool Look up official Azure icons and drag them into place Research pricing across regions using the Azure Pricing Calculator Validate the design against the Well-Architected Framework (WAF) Write deployment documentation and Infrastructure as Code templates Compare alternative designs manually Each step lives in a different tool, and keeping them in sync as designs evolve is costly. The Azure Architecture Diagram Builder brings these workflows together in a single browser-based experience. How It Works Describe your architecture in natural language, for example "A HIPAA-compliant healthcare platform with FHIR APIs, event-driven processing, and multi-region disaster recovery", and the AI generates a diagram with grouped services, data flow connections, and logical organization. Figure 1. Enter a natural-language prompt describing your architecture. Curated example prompts help you get started, and you can optionally upload an existing diagram for the AI to analyze. The tool uses Azure OpenAI to power generation across multiple models, enabling you to choose the model that best fits your scenario — from fast iterations to deeper reasoning. Key Features AI-Powered Architecture Generation Describe what you need in plain English, and the AI creates an architecture diagram with: 714 official Azure service icons across 29 categories Smart grouping: services are logically organized (Frontend, Backend, Data, Security) Data flow connections: labeled edges showing how data moves through the system 13 curated example prompts: from simple web apps to complex enterprise scenarios like Zero Trust networks, Industrial IoT with 5,000+ sensors, and global multiplayer gaming backends Figure 2. A generated industrial IoT architecture. Top: the clean diagram view as initially produced. Bottom: the same diagram with per-service monthly cost overlays toggled on, plus a running subscription total in the toolbar. Architecture Image Import Already have an architecture on a whiteboard or in a screenshot? Upload the image and let the AI analyze it, mapping services to official Azure icons and recreating the architecture as an editable, interactive diagram. Figure 3. Upload a photo of a whiteboard sketch (top-right reference panel) and the AI recreates it as an editable diagram with official Azure service icons and labeled data flow connections. ARM Template Import Import existing ARM templates to visualize your current infrastructure. The AI parses resource definitions and dependencies, groups related resources into logical layers, and produces a meaningful diagram of what you actually have deployed — a fast way to document an inherited environment or sanity-check a template before deployment. Figure 4. ARM template import in action. Top: the parser status banner while resources and dependencies are being analyzed. Bottom: the resulting diagram, with resources auto-grouped into logical layers (Web Tier, Data Layer, Container Platform, Observability & Logging) and a Generated from: ARM Template badge linking the diagram back to its source file. Well-Architected Framework Validation Validate your architecture against all five WAF pillars — Security, Reliability, Performance Efficiency, Cost Optimization, and Operational Excellence. The validator provides: An overall WAF score with pillar-level breakdowns Specific findings with severity levels Actionable recommendations you can select and apply Select the recommendations you agree with, and the AI regenerates an improved architecture incorporating those changes. Figure 5. WAF validation results showing the overall score, per-pillar breakdowns, and individual findings with severity badges. Tick the recommendations you want and the AI rebuilds the diagram with those changes applied. Multi-Model Comparison Run the same architecture prompt through multiple AI models side-by-side and compare: Architecture Comparison: service counts, connection counts, groups, token usage, and latency Validation Comparison: WAF scores across models, severity breakdowns, and finding counts Apply Winner: pick the best result and apply it to the canvas with one click Present Critique: a talking avatar narrates the AI-generated ranking with live closed captions Figure 6. Multi-model comparison. Top: select the models and reasoning effort, then enter the prompt. Bottom: side-by-side results across all selected models with service counts, latency, token usage, and Fastest / Cheapest / Most Thorough badges. Multi-Region Cost Estimation Get cost estimates from the Azure Retail Prices API across 8 Azure regions: East US 2, Australia East, Canada Central, Brazil South, Mexico Central, West Europe, Sweden Central, and Southeast Asia. Features include: Color-coded cost legend (green / yellow / red thresholds) SKU and tier information for each service Export options: CSV, JSON, plain-text summary, and an analysis report with top cost drivers, Reserved Instance flags, and a ranked multi-region comparison table Figure 7. The cost legend overlay shows per-service pricing with color-coded thresholds. The region selector in the toolbar lets you re-price the entire architecture in any of eight Azure regions. Deployment Guide Generation with Bicep Generate step-by-step deployment documentation including: Prerequisites and Azure resource requirements Step-by-step deployment instructions Bicep templates for each service (Infrastructure as Code) Post-deployment verification steps Security configuration recommendations Figure 8. Each generated Deployment Guide opens with the architecture name, an estimated deployment time, and a prerequisites checklist covering subscription roles, CLI versions, Microsoft Entra ID permissions, and region requirements, followed by numbered, copy-ready deployment steps. Figure 9. The Infrastructure as Code section produces a main.bicep orchestrator plus a per-service module (Log Analytics, Key Vault, Cosmos DB, SQL Database, Event Hubs, Azure Functions, and more). The Download All Templates button packages everything into a ready-to-deploy folder. Workflow Animation & Avatar Presenter Visualize how data flows through your architecture with step-by-step animations that highlight services on the canvas as each step plays. When the Azure Speech Service is configured, a photorealistic talking avatar can narrate the workflow or present model comparison results, with live word-by-word closed captions in a draggable, resizable panel. Figure 10. A workflow step is highlighted on the canvas as the Avatar Presenter narrates that step. Live word-by-word closed captions appear in a draggable, resizable panel, useful for accessibility and stakeholder demos. Export Options Figure 11. A single-slide PowerPoint export, available in dark or light theme, ready to drop straight into a stakeholder deck. Format Use Case PNG Documentation, presentations SVG Scalable vector graphics PPTX Single PowerPoint slide (dark or light theme) Draw.io Edit in diagrams.net JSON Backup, version control CSV / ZIP Cost analysis with multi-region comparison Highlights The Azure Architecture Diagram Builder unifies the architecture design lifecycle in a single tool: End-to-end workflow: from natural-language description to deployable Bicep templates without tool switching Official Azure icons: 714 icons across 29 categories, mapped directly from the Azure service catalog Live pricing: queries the Azure Retail Prices API at design time rather than relying on static estimates WAF-integrated validation: architectural best practices built into the design loop rather than applied after the fact Multi-model flexibility: choose the AI model that best suits each task, with fast models for iteration and reasoning models for complex designs Open source: the source code is available for customization and contribution One-Command Deploy with Azure Developer CLI The fastest way to get your own instance running is with azd : # Install azd (once) brew tap azure/azd && brew install azd # macOS winget install microsoft.azd # Windows # Clone, configure, and deploy git clone https://github.com/Arturo-Quiroga-MSFT/azure-architecture-diagram-builder cd azure-architecture-diagram-builder azd auth login azd env set AZURE_OPENAI_ENDPOINT "https://your-resource.openai.azure.com/" azd env set AZURE_OPENAI_API_KEY "your-key" azd up # Provisions infrastructure + builds + deploys (~8 min) azd up provisions the following via Bicep: Resource Purpose Azure Container Registry Stores the Docker image Azure Container Apps Runs the app (nginx + token server) Log Analytics + Application Insights Monitoring and telemetry Azure Speech (S0) Avatar Presenter (optional, keyless auth via managed identity) Try It Today The Azure Architecture Diagram Builder is available now: Live demo: https://aka.ms/diagram-builder Source code: GitHub repository Documentation: See the Getting Started Guide for detailed setup instructions We welcome feedback and contributions. Use the GitHub Issues page to report bugs, suggest features, or share your experience. Tags: artificial intelligence · application · apps & devops · well architected · infrastructureAzure Course Blueprints
Each Blueprint serves as a 1:1 visual representation of the official Microsoft instructor‑led course (ILT), ensuring full alignment with the learning path. This helps learners: see exactly how topics fit into the broader Azure landscape, map concepts interactively as they progress, and understand the “why” behind each module, not just the “what.” Formats Available: PDF · Visio · Excel · Video Every icon is clickable and links directly to the related Learn module. Layers and Cross‑Course Comparisons For expert‑level certifications like SC‑100 and AZ‑305, the Visio Template+ includes additional layers for each associate-level course. This allows trainers and students to compare certification paths at a glance: 🔐 Security Path SC‑100 side‑by‑side with SC‑200, SC‑300, SC‑500 🏗️ Infrastructure; Ai & Dev Path AZ‑305 alongside Ai-103, AZ‑104, Ai‑200, AZ‑700, AZ‑140 This helps learners clearly identify: prerequisites, skill gaps, overlapping modules, progression paths toward expert roles. Because associate certifications (e.g., SC‑300 → SC‑100 or AZ‑104 → AZ‑305) are often prerequisites or recommended foundations, this comparison layer makes it easy to understand what additional knowledge is required as learners advance. Benefits for Students 🎯 Defined Goals Learners clearly see the skills and services they are expected to master. 🔍 Focused Learning By spotlighting what truly matters, the Blueprint keeps learners oriented toward core learning objectives. 📈 Progress Tracking Students can easily identify what they’ve already mastered and where more study is needed. 📊 Slide Deck Topic Lists (Excel) A downloadable .xlsx file provides: a topic list for every module, links to Microsoft Learn, prerequisite dependencies. This file helps students build their own study plan while keeping all links organized. Download links Associate Level PDF - Demo Visio Contents AZ-104 Azure Administrator Associate R: 12/14/2023 U: 12/17/2025 Blueprint Demo Video Layer of Visio+ Excel Ai-103 Developing AI Apps and Agents on Azure R: 05/20/2026 Blueprint Inludes Ai-200 Layer of Visio+ Ai-200 Azure Developer Associate R: 11/05/2024 U: 12/17/2025 Blueprint Demo Layer of Visio+ Excel SC-500 Azure Security Engineer Associate R: 01/09/2024 U: 05/20/2026 Blueprint Demo Layer of Visio+ Excel AZ-700 Azure Network Engineer Associate R: 01/25/2024 U: 12/17/2025 Blueprint Demo Layer of Visio+ Excel SC-200 Security Operations Analyst Associate R: 04/03/2025 U:04/09/2025 Blueprint Demo Layer of Visio+ Excel SC-300 Identity and Access Administrator Associate R: 10/10/2024 Blueprint Demo Layer of Visio+ Excel Specialty PDF Visio AZ-140 Azure Virtual Desktop Specialty R: 01/03/2024 U: 12/17/2025 Blueprint Demo Layer of Visio+ Excel Expert level PDF Visio AZ-305 Designing Microsoft Azure Infrastructure Solutions R: 05/07/2024 U: 05/20/2026 Blueprint Demo Visio+ AZ-104 AZ-700 AZ-140 Ai-103 Ai-200 Excel SC-100 Microsoft Cybersecurity Architect R: 10/10/2024 U: 05/20/2026 Blueprint Demo Visio+ SC-500 SC-300 SC-200 Excel Skill based Credentialing PDF AZ-1002 Configure secure access to your workloads using Azure virtual networking R: 05/27/2024 Blueprint Visio Excel AZ-1003 Secure storage for Azure Files and Azure Blob Storage R: 02/07/2024 U: 02/05/2024 Blueprint Excel Subscribe if you want to get notified of any update like new releases or updates. Author: Ilan Nyska, Microsoft Technical Trainer My email ilan.nyska@microsoft.com LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/ilan-nyska/ I’ve received so many kind messages, thank-you notes, and reshares — and I’m truly grateful. But here’s the reality: 💬 The only thing I can use internally to justify continuing this project is your engagement — through this survey https://lnkd.in/gnZ8v4i8 ___ Benefits for Trainers: Trainers can follow this plan to design a tailored diagram for their course, filled with notes. They can construct this comprehensive diagram during class on a whiteboard and continuously add to it in each session. This evolving visual aid can be shared with students to enhance their grasp of the subject matter. Explore Azure Course Blueprints! | Microsoft Community Hub Visio stencils Azure icons - Azure Architecture Center | Microsoft Learn ___ Are you curious how grounding Copilot in Azure Course Blueprints transforms your study journey into smarter, more visual experience: 🧭 Clickable guides that transform modules into intuitive roadmaps 🌐 Dynamic visual maps revealing how Azure services connect ⚖️ Side-by-side comparisons that clarify roles, services, and security models Whether you're a trainer, a student, or just certification-curious, Copilot becomes your shortcut to clarity, confidence, and mastery. Navigating Azure Certifications with Copilot and Azure Course Blueprints | Microsoft Community Hub Azure Course Blueprints + Demo Deploy Demos are essential for achieving end‑to‑end understanding of Azure. To reduce preparation overhead, we collaborated with Peter De Tender to align each Blueprint with the official Trainer Demo Deploy scenarios. With a single click, trainers can deploy the full environment and guide learners through practical, aligned demonstrations. https://aka.ms/DemoDeployPDFCloud Native Platforms: Run
Audience: SREs (Site Reliability Engineers), platform engineers, engineering managers running production systems Reading time: 8 minutes Series: Cloud Native Platforms. Build, Run, Evolve. This is Part 2 of 3. Most systems are designed thoughtfully. Most operations are inherited reactively. The systems that survive are not the ones built with the most care. They are the ones operated with the most discipline. Production has a way of revealing every shortcut taken during design and every assumption left unverified. This post is about what it takes to operate a platform once the build is done. How they are run, not how they are built Systems are not defined by how they are built. They are defined by how they are run. A well-designed system that is operated reactively will fail in production. A modestly designed system that is operated with discipline will outperform it. Five operational disciplines decide which side of that line a platform lives on. Each one is engineering work, not a checklist for someone else to handle. Figure 1. The incident lifecycle as a state machine. The states are not optional steps. They are the contract between the team and the system. 1. Observability is the backbone of reliability Without observability, every operation becomes a guess. As systems grow, the cost of guessing rises faster than the cost of seeing. Part 1 of this series argued that observability is a design property: instrumentation contracts, request id propagation, structured logging schemas. Production is where those design choices either pay off or do not. Strong observability in production is a contract that lets any engineer answer three questions in minutes: what failed, why it failed, and what the impact was. The shape of that contract matters more than the tool that implements it. (This three-question framing is community-popularised through the SRE community and writers such as Charity Majors. See Honeycomb's What is Observability for the canonical articulation of the three-pillars and question framing; the substance is older than the framing.) Dashboards organised around user journeys, not infrastructure components Service level indicators (SLIs: the specific measurements you care about, e.g., success rate, p99 latency) chosen from the user's perspective, not the database's Alerts that page only on burn-rate against an SLO (Service Level Objective: the target value of an SLI, e.g., 99.9% of requests complete in under 800ms over a rolling month) using a multi-window strategy. A short window catches fast burns; a long window catches slow drifts. This is what makes SLOs operational rather than decorative. Sampling and retention tuned for cost, but never for blind spots The distinction between MTTA (mean time to acknowledge: how fast someone notices) and MTTR (mean time to restore: how fast service returns) tracked separately. Conflating them hides whether the team's bottleneck is detection, response, or fix. In practice The pattern that works: rebuild the operational view around two or three user journeys (sign-in, place order, view history) rather than per-component charts. Tie alerts to error budget burn rather than raw threshold crossings. Track MTTA and MTTR separately so the team's actual bottleneck (detection, response, or fix) is visible. The investment is rethinking what to measure, not buying a new tool. The return is that incidents stop being discovered by customer complaints first. Teams that make this shift typically find their existing telemetry was sufficient; only the questions being asked of it were wrong. If a dashboard cannot answer "what is the user experiencing right now", it is not an observability dashboard. It is decoration. 2. Alerts are signals, not notifications More alerts do not mean better monitoring. In practice, the opposite is true. Once alerts outpace the team's ability to act, important signals start getting missed. Effective alerting works to a small set of rules: Severity that maps to action, not to technical category Ownership baked in, never inferred at runtime Thresholds tied to user impact, not raw metric values Noise treated as a defect, with a regular review cadence Suppression and grouping for known multi-alert patterns In practice The pattern that works: audit every alert against one test, "what action would I take in the next five minutes if this fires now?" Demote alerts with no answer to dashboards. Remove alerts where the answer is the same as another alert's. Group related alerts so one incident produces one page, not twelve. Most teams discover their alert volume drops by an order of magnitude after a thorough audit, and the alerts that remain start getting trusted again. Trust is the precondition for every other operational practice. Without it, on-call rotations decay into noise filtering and the real signals get missed. Figure 2. From raw events to pages, in approximate orders of magnitude. The numbers vary by team and workload; what does not vary is that each stage needs to remove one to two orders of magnitude of noise. Teams that page on raw events end up with on-call rotations nobody trusts. 3. Incident response is a practiced muscle Failures are inevitable. Unstructured response is not. The teams that recover quickly do not improvise during incidents. They follow a structure that has been practiced when nothing was on fire. The structure is intentionally simple, because incident time is the worst time to negotiate roles. Clear roles: incident lead, communications lead, scribe, subject matter expert (the RACI model, Responsible-Accountable-Consulted-Informed, adapted for incident response) Defined escalation paths with clear handoff criteria. Escalation means re-paging to a higher tier or specialist, not returning to detection. The lifecycle diagram in Figure 1 makes the distinction explicit. Runbooks for the top failure modes, kept short enough to actually be read Status communication on a fixed cadence, even when there is nothing new to say. Customer comms and internal comms are tracked separately. Blameless postmortems (focus on the system that allowed the failure, not the person who pushed the button) that produce action items the team actually completes Game days: scheduled exercises that simulate failure modes (region outage, dependency unavailability, traffic spike) under controlled conditions, so gaps in runbooks are found before incidents do In practice The pattern that works: name the incident lead and the comms lead before the first message goes out. Write runbooks short enough to be scannable at 3 AM. Run blameless postmortems with action items that actually get tracked to completion. Schedule game days quarterly so the runbooks are exercised before real incidents. Teams that operate with this structure do not have more engineers; they have engineers who are not single points of failure during recovery. The deepest experts stay the deepest experts, but the platform stops depending on whether they happen to be online. Implementation note A short, well-structured runbook outperforms a long, exhaustive one. The goal during an incident is not to think. It is to act on a procedure that has been thought through in calmer times. # Runbook header pattern (keep it scannable in incident time) title: High latency on order API slo_protected: # this runbook protects two SLOs - order-completion-success - order-completion-latency severity: # derived from burn rate, not declared fast_burn: P1 # 14.4x budget burn over 1 hour => page now slow_burn: P2 # 6x budget burn over 6 hours => investigate owner: payments-team indicators: # triggers for evaluation, not severity - p99 (99th-percentile) latency exceeds the SLO target for 5 min - error rate exceeds the SLO target for 3 min on order-completion first_actions: - Open the order-journey dashboard. Confirm impact in business terms. - Check Service Bus queue depth and dead-letter rate (the most common cause of API latency under load is downstream backpressure) - Verify Cosmos DB RU/s saturation and partition hotspots - Inspect the most recent deployment for behavioural changes escalate_if: - Latency does not recover in 15 min - Error rate exceeds 5% (fast burn against the SLO) - Customer reports arrive before our own signals do rollback_path: - Feature flag "new-order-pipeline" can be disabled per-tenant - Last known good deployment id is in the release tracker note_on_scaling: # CPU is rarely the cause of latency in this service. Scale only after # confirming the bottleneck is compute, not a downstream dependency or # queue depth. Adding capacity to a saturated downstream amplifies the # incident; it does not resolve it. The general principle behind that last note travels beyond this runbook: scale-out is the right remediation for compute saturation, not for downstream saturation. When latency rises because a database, queue, or external dependency is saturated, adding capacity in front of the bottleneck moves more requests into the bottleneck and makes the incident worse. This is one of the most common operational mistakes when the dashboard shows red and the on-call instinct says "add more". 4. Release confidence is engineered Releases get harder as systems grow. The platforms that ship confidently at scale have engineered the path, not learned to fear it. The patterns that change the math: Feature flags that allow change without deploy Canary deployments (releasing the new version to a small slice of traffic first, watching error budget burn before continuing) that surface problems on a small slice Gradual rollouts with automated rollback triggers Database migrations split from application releases Release coordination that scales with services, not with team size In practice The pattern that works: every change ships behind a feature flag, canary deployments take a small slice of traffic first, and rollback is a one-click step in the pipeline rather than a procedure to be invented during an incident. The cost is the discipline of building rollback paths and exercising them. The return is releases that stop being events. Issues that previously triggered full rollbacks get isolated to a slice and rolled back automatically before they reach most users. The willingness to ship smaller, more frequent changes follows directly from the confidence that bad changes can be undone fast. Big releases feel safe because they are rare. They are actually risky because every change rides together. 5. Reliability is continuous, not a milestone Reliability is not achieved through tools alone. It requires continuous refinement, feedback-driven improvement, and a budget that the team can spend on operational work without negotiating each time. The disciplines that keep systems reliable over years are codified well in the SRE-book framing of service level objectives and error budgets (the canonical reference is the Google SRE Book chapter on Service Level Objectives, with the operational follow-up in the SRE Workbook chapter on alerting on SLOs). The names matter less than the practice they enable. SLOs chosen from the user's perspective, with two or three per service rather than ten. More SLOs means none of them shape behaviour. Error budgets: the inverse of the SLO, expressing how much unreliability the team is willing to spend in a window. Used up early in the month means slow down on releases. Healthy means feature work keeps moving. Multi-window burn-rate alerting turns SLOs from dashboards into pages: short window catches catastrophic failures, long window catches slow drift. Without burn-rate alerting, SLOs are observation, not operation. (The pattern is documented in the SRE Workbook.) Reliability work has its own backlog, prioritised against features. Not a wishlist after every incident. Regular game days that exercise failure modes (region failover, dependency outage, traffic spike) before they happen for real Capacity planning informed by data, not by anxiety In practice The pattern that works: define two or three SLOs per service, expressed from the user's perspective. Compute the error budget weekly. When the budget is healthy, ship feature work. When the budget is burning fast, slow down and fix the cause. The conversation about which incidents matter and which can wait becomes possible because there is a shared number to point at. Reliability becomes a quantified property of the platform, not an opinion debated at every retrospective. Teams that adopt this discipline stop having the recurring "how reliable do we need to be?" argument and start having data-grounded trade-off discussions instead. A scenario that ties it together A platform was launching a new region. The build had gone well. Day 1 was clean. Two weeks in, latency started creeping up during peak hours. Alerts fired on raw thresholds, but no one could tell which ones to trust. Incident calls turned into long debugging sessions because three different teams owned overlapping pieces of the request path. The team did not start by buying a new tool. They started by treating operations as engineering work. The dashboard was redesigned around the user journey. Alerts were audited and most were demoted or removed. Roles for incident response were written down. A short runbook covered the top failure modes. Releases were broken into canary slices behind feature flags. None of this was new. It was discipline applied consistently to work that was previously assumed to be someone else's. The next region launch took half the effort, and the team's mean time to restore on the failures that did happen was measurably lower. What teams get wrong The common pattern is treating Day 2 as the cost of Day 1. Teams design beautifully, ship fast, then quietly absorb the operational debt. Dashboards proliferate. Alerts grow louder. Postmortems pile up. The fix is not more dashboards. It is treating operations as engineering work with the same rigour as feature delivery. Operability is a property the system either has or does not. It is not earned by adding monitoring. It is earned by designing for visibility and operating with discipline. Where to start The most concrete starter from this post: an alert audit. List every alert that fires in the next week and apply a single test to each one: "what action would I take in the next five minutes?" Demote the alerts that have no answer. Remove the alerts where the answer is the same as another alert's. The audit takes a morning. The result usually halves alert volume and lifts trust on what remains, which is the precondition for every other operational practice in this post. The shift The most important shift in maturity is not technical. It is in stance. The shift is from shipping software to operating systems: Operations is not a phase that follows engineering. It is engineering. Reliability is not a milestone reached. It is a discipline practiced. Incidents are not interruptions to the work. They are the work. The teams that internalise this shift run platforms that are smaller, calmer, and more trusted. They do not have fewer incidents because their systems are more advanced. They have fewer incidents because their operational discipline is more consistent. Part 3 of this series argues that the same discipline applies again, in a different domain: the practices that make platforms operable are the practices that make AI useful in delivery. Want to discuss? What is the one operational practice your team adopted that changed how you sleep at night? Drop a comment with patterns you have seen in your environment. Every reply gets read. Previously in this series: Building Cloud Native Platforms That Scale: Patterns That Actually Work. The first post covered the design choices that make scale possible. Next in this series: AI-First Platform Engineering: From Copilot to Agentic Delivery. Cloud helped us scale infrastructure. The next post looks at how AI is now changing how we build and run platforms.WAR, Azure Advisor, and Us (Azure Arch Diagram Builder): Three Ways to Score an Azure Architecture
Author: Arturo Quiroga, Azure AI services Engineer - Senior Partner Solutions Architect — Microsoft A few days ago I published From Prompt to Production: Building Azure Architecture Diagrams with AI, introducing the open-source Azure Architecture Diagram Builder. One feature got more follow-up questions than any other: the Well-Architected Framework (WAF) validation. Architects from partners and customers — many of whom already use Azure Advisor and the Well-Architected Review — wanted to know exactly what scoring algorithm we use, how it compares to Microsoft's official tools, and whether they should be using all three. This post is that answer. It's a deep dive into how design-time WAF validation works, how Microsoft's two official WAF assessment algorithms work, and where each fits in the architecture lifecycle. TL;DR. Microsoft ships two WAF assessment vehicles — the Well-Architected Review (questionnaire, scored from human answers) and the Azure Advisor score (healthy-resources-÷-applicable-resources weighted per subcategory, with Defender Secure Score for Security and cost-weighted math for Cost). Both require either a human filling in a form or live Azure telemetry. Our app runs at design time on a diagram, before anything is deployed, using a hybrid pipeline: a deterministic rule pre-scan followed by an LLM refinement pass. Same five WAF pillars, different lifecycle stage. Complementary, not competitive. Why design-time validation matters Every cost overrun, reliability gap, and security incident I've ever debugged was cheaper to fix on a whiteboard than in production. Yet most WAF tooling assumes the architecture already exists — either because there are deployed resources to scan (Advisor) or because someone has built enough of it to answer 60 specific questions about it (WAR). That leaves a gap. Between "rough sketch" and "deployed resource group" there is no algorithmic WAF feedback loop. That's the gap the Diagram Builder fills. Microsoft's two official WAF assessment algorithms Before describing our approach, it's worth being precise about what Microsoft already ships, because the term "WAF assessment algorithm" can mean either of two very different things. 1. Azure Well-Architected Review (WAR) — questionnaire-based The Well-Architected Review is a free self-assessment hosted on Microsoft Learn. Aspect Detail Input Human answers to ~60 questions mapped to the WAF pillar checklists Workload variants Core WAR, plus AI/ML, IoT, SAP on Azure, Azure Stack Hub, SaaS, Mission Critical Scoring Derived from the answers — each "no" or unanswered question subtracts from the pillar score Output Per-pillar maturity score + prioritized recommendations + optional Advisor integration Improvement tracking "Milestones" (point-in-time snapshots) When to use Periodic deep reviews; greenfield design baselining; brownfield audits WAR is human-driven. The algorithm is essentially "how many of the recommended practices have you confirmed you do?" — which is exactly the right algorithm when the assessor is the workload team itself. 2. Azure Advisor Score — telemetry-based The Advisor score is the closest thing Microsoft ships to a real, deterministic WAF algorithm. It runs continuously over your deployed Azure resources. The math: Pillar-specific overrides: Security uses Microsoft Defender for Cloud's Secure Score model. Cost weights by retail $ cost of healthy resources, plus age-of-recommendation weighting; postponed/dismissed items are removed from the denominator. Reliability / Performance / Operational Excellence use the healthy-resources ratio above. Key terms: Healthy resource — a deployed resource with no open Advisor recommendation against it for that pillar. Total applicable — resources Advisor was able to evaluate (excludes dismissed/snoozed). Advisor is the right tool once you're in production. It cannot help you before deployment, because there is nothing to count as "healthy" or "applicable." The missing stage: design time Here's the lifecycle, with each tool's domain shaded: Design / Diagram — Diagram Builder validation runs here. Operate / Observe — Azure Advisor runs here continuously. Periodic Review — WAR runs here, typically quarterly or at major milestones. These three stages are sequential and complementary. Our app does not replace Advisor or WAR — it adds a feedback loop earlier in the lifecycle, where corrections are cheapest. How design-time validation works in the Azure Architecture Diagram Builder The validator is a two-phase hybrid pipeline: deterministic local rules first, then LLM refinement. The full source lives in three files: src/services/architectureValidator.ts — orchestrator and prompt src/services/wafPatternDetector.ts — topology + service rule engine src/data/wafRules.ts — the rule knowledge base Phase 1 — Deterministic rule pre-scan (~1 ms, no LLM) When you click Validate Architecture, the validator runs a fully client-side rule engine against the diagram's services, connections, and groups. There are two kinds of rules: Architecture-pattern rules These fire when a topology anti-pattern is detected: Pattern Detection trigger single-region No global LB (Traffic Manager / Front Door) with ≥3 services single-database Exactly one database service, no replication signal no-cache Compute + database present, no Redis/CDN no-monitoring No Azure Monitor / App Insights / Log Analytics no-identity No Microsoft Entra ID no-waf Public web tier without WAF / Front Door / App Gateway direct-db-access An edge from a frontend service directly into a database no-key-vault 4+ services and no Key Vault no-backup Database present, no Azure Backup / Recovery Services no-api-gateway 2+ compute services and no APIM / App Gateway / Front Door Service-specific rules Every service in the in the generated Azure Architecture diagram is matched against SERVICE_SPECIFIC_RULES by normalized type — App Service, Functions, AKS, Cosmos DB, SQL Database, Storage, Key Vault, and 22 more. The knowledge base at a glance Metric Count Total rules 73 Architecture-pattern rules 10 Service-specific rules 63 Distinct Azure services covered 29 Rules tagged Reliability 18 Rules tagged Security 34 Rules tagged Cost Optimization 5 Rules tagged Operational Excellence 7 Rules tagged Performance Efficiency 9 The preliminary score Each finding has a severity, and severity drives a fixed point deduction from a starting score of 100: Severity Deduction critical −12 high −7 medium −3 low −1 Result is floored at 10 (so even a deliberately bad architecture scores at least 10) and ceilinged at 95 (no findings ≠ perfect — there's always something the model might still catch). This is the deterministic baseline before the LLM ever sees the architecture, and it's what makes the pipeline reproducible. Phase 2 — LLM contextual refinement The pre-scan output, the topology, and the optional natural-language description are folded into a focused prompt sent to one of seven Azure OpenAI models (GPT-5.1 through 5.4, GPT-5.x Codex variants, DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale, Grok 4.1 Fast). The system prompt gives the model explicit scoring guardrails: Score based on what IS present, not what COULD be added. A well-connected architecture with appropriate services should score 60–80. Score below 50 only for critical gaps (no auth, no monitoring, single points of failure). Findings are improvement suggestions, not reasons to penalize the score severely. The model returns strict JSON: { "overallScore": 0-100, "summary": "2–3 sentence assessment", "pillars": [ { "pillar": "Reliability | Security | Cost Optimization | Operational Excellence | Performance Efficiency", "score": 0-100, "findings": [ { "severity": "critical | high | medium | low", "category": "...", "issue": "...", "recommendation": "...", "resources": ["service-name-1", "service-name-2"], "source": "rule-based | ai-analysis" } ] } ], "quickWins": [ /* same shape as findings */ ] } Two things to call out: Every finding is tagged rule-based or ai-analysis . That tag is the credibility lever. You can always see what the deterministic engine produced versus what the model contributed on top. If you don't trust the AI layer, you can ignore it entirely — the rule layer still stands. The LLM is given pattern hints, not the entire rule catalog. The prompt stays small and focused, which is roughly 3–5× faster and cheaper than asking the LLM to do everything from scratch. What the user sees On every run the modal reports: Overall WAF score (0–100) Per-pillar score × 5 (0–100 each) Severity breakdown — counts of critical / high / medium / low across all findings Quick wins — high-impact, low-effort items the model surfaces separately Hybrid metadata — local findings count, patterns detected, KB rules used, preliminary score, local elapsed ms AI metrics — model used, reasoning effort, prompt/completion/total tokens, elapsed time App Insights telemetry — an Architecture_Validated event with model, overall score, finding count, elapsed time Worked example Take this prompt, which I've used in demos with partners: "A multi-region web application: Azure Front Door in front of two App Service instances in West US 2 and East US 2, both reading from an Azure SQL Database with geo-replication, with Application Insights for telemetry. No Entra ID, no Key Vault." After generation, Validate Architecture runs: Phase 1 — pre-scan (deterministic), ~1 ms Patterns detected: no-identity , no-key-vault Findings produced: 8 (1 critical, 1 high, 3 medium, 3 low) Preliminary score: 100 − 12 − 7 − (3×3) − (1×3) = 69 Phase 2 — LLM refinement, ~6–9 s depending on model The model accepts the two pattern hints, validates them in context, and adds three more findings of its own: Finding Source Pillar Severity No Microsoft Entra ID for authentication rule-based Security critical No Key Vault for secret management rule-based Security high App Service slots not used for safe deploys ai-analysis Operational Excellence medium SQL DB geo-replication present but RTO/RPO not documented ai-analysis Reliability medium No CDN for static assets behind Front Door ai-analysis Performance Efficiency low Final scores returned by the model: Pillar Score Reliability 78 Security 52 Cost Optimization 80 Operational Excellence 70 Performance Efficiency 75 Overall 71 The Security score is the lowest because two of the highest-severity findings landed there — exactly what a human reviewer would flag first. Multi-model comparison Because the deterministic floor is identical across runs, the Validation Comparison view becomes a fair shootout of what each LLM adds on top of the same baseline. The same diagram is scored by all seven models, and the UI surfaces: Overall score per model Per-pillar score per model Severity-count deltas Number of ai-analysis findings each model contributed Quick wins each model identified This is genuinely useful for two reasons. First, it shows that LLM scores vary — typically by ±5–10 points on the same architecture — which is exactly why we publish the rule-based vs ai-analysis tag. Second, it lets architects pick the model whose review style matches their own. How we align with Microsoft's algorithms Alignment point What it means Same five pillars Identical names and scope to the official WAF Same source material Rules derived from WAF docs and Azure Architecture Center service guides Severity-graded findings Map conceptually to Advisor's high/medium/low impact recommendations Per-pillar + overall scoring Mirrors WAR/Advisor output shape, so the results feel familiar Where we deliberately differ — and why Concern Microsoft Diagram Builder Why we differ Needs deployed resources Advisor: yes No — works on a diagram We're a design-time tool; the architecture doesn't exist yet Needs human Q&A WAR: yes No — derived from the diagram One-click validation inside the design flow Healthy/Applicable ratio Advisor: yes No No resource-health signal exists pre-deployment Subcategory fixed weights Advisor: yes No explicit weights Severity is the de-facto weight (12/7/3/1) Defender Secure Score for Security Advisor: yes No Defender requires deployed resources Cost-weighted scoring Advisor: yes No (separate Cost Estimation feature) Cost is a separate pipeline in our app AI/LLM refinement Neither Yes Catches context-specific issues a static catalog misses, and explains findings in natural language Multi-model comparison Neither Yes Lets architects see scoring variance across models Honest limitations I'd rather you hear these from me than discover them in production: LLM scores drift. ±5–10 points across models on the same diagram is normal. Treat the score as directional, the findings as actionable. The rule-based tag is your anchor. No live telemetry. We can't know if your App Service is actually using availability zones — only that you have App Service in the diagram. Advisor will tell you the truth post-deployment. Generic ruleset. No specialized workload branches yet (AI/ML, IoT, SAP, SaaS). WAR has those. No milestone tracking. Each validation run is independent. Compare runs manually using the Validation Comparison view. Rule coverage is finite. 29 services and 73 rules is a strong start but not exhaustive — the LLM layer exists in part to compensate for that gap. How to use all three together A lifecycle that actually works: Design — Use the Diagram Builder to sketch the architecture and validate at design time. Iterate until the per-pillar scores look reasonable and the critical/high findings are addressed. Deploy — Generate Bicep from the diagram, deploy, and let Azure Advisor start scoring real resources. Operate — Use Azure Advisor continuously. Use Defender Secure Score for security posture. Periodic review — Run a Core WAR every quarter or at major milestones to capture the things only humans know (business context, tradeoffs, planned debt). None of these three replace the others. They cover different stages of the same loop. What's next A few things on the roadmap I'd love feedback on: Milestone tracking so design-time scores can be compared over time the way WAR milestones work. Workload-specific rulesets mirroring WAR's branches — starting with AI/ML. Direct Advisor handoff — once a diagram is deployed, surface the corresponding Advisor recommendations in the same UI to close the loop. Try it, fork it, tell me where it's wrong Live app: https://aka.ms/diagram-builder Source: github.com/Arturo-Quiroga-MSFT/azure-architecture-diagram-builder Useful references: Azure Well-Architected Framework pillars Azure Well-Architected Review tool Azure Advisor score — calculation Use Azure WAF assessments (Advisor) Complete an Azure Well-Architected Review assessment If you're a partner or customer architect who's already living in Advisor and WAR, I'd genuinely value your reaction — does the design-time stage feel like a real gap to you, or are you already covering it some other way? Open an issue on the repo or reply on LinkedIn. Posted on the Azure Architecture Blog · Comments and issues welcome on the repo.
Configure DNS forwarding for Azure NetApp Files
This post has been written with the collaboration of Rizul Khanna Applies to: Azure NetApp Files — SMB, dual-protocol, and NFSv4.1 Kerberos volumes deployed in hub-spoke or Azure Virtual WAN topologies using an external private DNS forwarder. Overview Azure NetApp Files (ANF) has a hard dependency on DNS for all volume types that integrate with Active Directory (AD): SMB, dual-protocol (SMB + NFS), and NFSv4.1 with Kerberos. Unlike most Azure PaaS services, ANF does not use Azure Private Link and has no privatelink.* zone. Its volumes attach directly to a delegated subnet, and their hostnames are registered into AD-integrated DNS via Secure Dynamic DNS (DDNS). This architecture means DNS design decisions for the ANF delegated subnet are fundamentally different from those that apply to storage accounts, SQL databases, or other services that use private endpoints. This article documents what DNS resolution ANF requires, how to correctly configure an external private DNS forwarder in hub-spoke and Virtual WAN deployments, and the specific undocumented requirements that cause volume creation failures and SMB permission errors in practice. Several requirements covered here are not present in the official Azure NetApp Files documentation and have been identified through field support cases. ANF does not inherit the VNET DNS server setting. It queries only the two DNS server IPs configured in the Active Directory connection on the NetApp account. This is not documented in the ANF networking or AD connection articles. The VNET DNS server setting is irrelevant to ANF volume creation and AD join behavior — only the AD connection DNS IPs matter. Architecture overview The following diagram shows the two separate DNS paths that must be configured when ANF is deployed in a hub-spoke or Virtual WAN topology with an external private DNS forwarder. The client resolution path (VNET DNS setting) and the ANF internal resolution path (AD connection DNS fields) are distinct and must not be conflated. Note: ANF AD connection DNS IPs must point to the external DC IPs directly — not to the private DNS forwarder. The forwarder handles client-side resolution only and must have both forward and reverse rulesets for the AD domain. Figure 1: DNS resolution paths for ANF with an external private DNS forwarder. Client VMs use the forwarder (VNET DNS setting). ANF uses the external AD DC IPs directly (AD connection DNS fields). Both forward and reverse lookup rulesets are required on the forwarder. What DNS must provide for Azure NetApp Files Outbound resolution — ANF querying DNS ANF must be able to resolve the following records from the DNS IPs specified in the AD connection: AD domain controller SRV records: _ldap._tcp.<site>._sites.dc._msdcs.<domain>, _kerberos._tcp.dc._msdcs.<domain>, and site-scoped equivalents Kerberos KDC records: _kerberos._tcp.<domain> and _kerberos-master._tcp/udp.<domain> DC A records: Forward lookup for each DC hostname to its IP PTR (reverse) records: IP-to-hostname for each DC — required for dual-protocol volume creation, NFSv4.1 Kerberos, LDAP-over-TLS certificate validation, and NTFS ACL operations on SMB shares. Note: _kerberos-master._tcp and _kerberos-master._udp SRV records are not created automatically by Active Directory DNS. They must be added manually in the DNS zone. Their absence causes Kerberos failures that do not clearly identify DNS as the root cause. This requirement is not documented in any ANF article. ANF performs Secure Dynamic DNS (DDNS) using GSS-TSIG to register SMB and dual-protocol volume hostnames in AD DNS. This requires that the DNS IPs in the AD connection belong to Microsoft AD-integrated DNS servers. External private DNS forwarders (Infoblox, BIND, Unbound, and similar appliances) do not support GSS-TSIG and will silently discard DDNS updates — volume hostnames will not appear in DNS and SMB mounts will fail. No error is surfaced in the ANF portal or activity log when DDNS is silently dropped. Inbound resolution — clients resolving ANF hostnames SMB and dual-protocol volumes are accessed via a hostname of the form <smb-prefix>-XXXX.<ad-dns-domain>, where the four-character suffix is assigned by ANF and cannot be overridden. Clients must resolve this hostname to the volume IP via the VNET DNS server setting, which in enterprise environments points to the external private DNS forwarder. The forwarder must have a forward lookup ruleset for the AD domain pointing to the external DC IPs. NFSv3 mounts use the volume IP directly and do not require hostname resolution. Note: NFSv3 volume creation success does not indicate SMB readiness. NFSv3 mounts use the volume IP directly and require no AD join, Kerberos exchange, or reverse DNS. SMB and dual-protocol volumes require all three. Using NFSv3 as a connectivity proxy during SMB troubleshooting produces false confidence. This distinction is not documented in ANF troubleshooting guidance. Configuring the external private DNS forwarder The two DNS paths — client resolution vs ANF internal In environments using an external private DNS forwarder (Infoblox, BIND, Windows DNS VM, or similar appliance), two distinct DNS paths must be kept separate. The VNET DNS server setting governs client resolution of ANF SMB hostnames and should point to the external forwarder. The ANF AD connection DNS fields govern ANF's own resolution of DCs and DDNS registration and must point directly to writable Microsoft AD-integrated DC IPs. DNS Path Used By Correct Target Client resolution (VNET DNS setting) VMs, Citrix, application servers resolving ANF SMB hostnames. External private DNS forwarder, which forwards AD zone queries to external DC IPs ANF internal resolution (AD connection DNS fields) ANF service — DDNS, Kerberos, LDAP, SRV lookup Writable AD-integrated external DC IPs directly — not the forwarder Required rulesets on the external private DNS forwarder The external private DNS forwarder must have both of the following rulesets configured. Missing either one produces failures that are difficult to diagnose because forward DNS tests pass while the actual failure occurs in a different path. References: Understanding Private DNS resolver endpoints & rulesets How to create Private Reverse DNS records Forward lookup ruleset Forward all queries for the AD domain to the external DC IPs: Zone: ad.contoso.com Targets: <DC-IP-1>:53, <DC-IP-2>:53 (writable external DC IPs) Reverse lookup ruleset (most commonly missing) Forward reverse lookup queries for the DC IP range to the external DC IPs: Zone: <reverse-octets>.in-addr.arpa. Targets: <DC-IP-1>:53, <DC-IP-2>:53 (same external DC IPs) Critical: The reverse lookup ruleset is the most commonly missing configuration item and causes a failure that forward DNS tests do not detect. Without it, Windows clients cannot resolve DC IPs to hostnames. This produces the following error when provisioning NTFS permissions on an ANF SMB share: 'The program cannot open the required dialog box because it cannot determine whether the computer named is joined to a domain.' All connectivity tests pass. Forward DNS passes. The volume was created successfully. Only the reverse lookup fails — and only when NTFS ACL operations are attempted. This failure mode and its root cause are not documented in any ANF article. GSS-TSIG constraint — why the forwarder cannot be in the ANF AD connection External private DNS forwarders (including Infoblox, BIND, Unbound, and third-party appliances) do not support GSS-TSIG, the protocol ANF uses to securely register SMB volume hostnames into AD DNS. If a forwarder IP is placed in the ANF AD connection DNS fields, ANF sends DDNS update packets to the forwarder, which discards them silently. The volume hostname never appears in DNS. Clients cannot mount by name. No error is returned in the ANF portal. The correct design: external DC IPs in the ANF AD connection, external private DNS forwarder as the VNET DNS server for clients only. Role of 168.63.129.16 168.63.129.16 is the Azure-provided internal resolver. It should be configured as the upstream forwarder target on the external private DNS forwarder for all queries not covered by AD or other conditional forwarders. This allows Azure-hosted DNS zones (such as any privatelink.* zones linked to your VNET) to resolve correctly through the forwarder. IMPORTANT: 168.63.129.16 must never be placed in the ANF AD connection DNS fields. It is not AD-aware, cannot answer SRV queries for your domain, cannot accept DDNS updates, and is unreachable from on-premises over ExpressRoute or VPN. Its correct position is as an upstream target on the external private DNS forwarder — not in ANF's AD connection. This is not stated anywhere in the ANF documentation set. DNS forwarder pattern comparison Pattern DDNS Support Reverse DNS Ops overhead Best Fit AD DNS on DCs + upstream 168.63.129.16 Yes, Native Yes, if reverse zones on DC's Medium Default; simplest topology External private DNS forwarder (VMs only) + external DC IPs in ANF AD connection Yes (ANF bypasses forwarder) Yes, if reverse ruleset on forwarder. Medium Enterprise with existing DNS infrastructure External DNS forwarder in ANF AD connection (incorrect) No — DDNS silently dropped N/A — config is wrong High Not supported Azure DNS Private Resolver in ANF AD connection (incorrect) No — DDNS not accepted N/A — config is wrong High Not supported Azure Virtual WAN considerations When ANF is deployed in a spoke VNET connected to an Azure Virtual WAN hub, a routing requirement applies that directly causes Kerberos and LDAP failures — which appear to be DNS or AD failures — when not addressed. This is one of the most common misdiagnoses in ANF deployments using Virtual WAN with NVA inspection. ANF subnet prefix must be in Routing Intent additional prefixes Azure Virtual WAN with Routing Intent routes private traffic through an NVA or Azure Firewall in the hub. For return traffic from external AD domain controllers to reach the ANF data plane IP, the hub must have an explicit routing entry for the ANF delegated subnet prefix. If the ANF delegated subnet is a /26 inside a larger VNET (/21 or /16), the broader VNET prefix alone is not sufficient — the specific /26 must be added explicitly. Action Required: In Azure Virtual WAN: Hub -> Routing -> Routing Intent -> Private Traffic -> Additional Prefixes. Add the ANF delegated subnet prefix (for example, 10.x.x.0/26) explicitly. Without this, Kerberos and LDAP reply traffic from external domain controllers is dropped before reaching the ANF data plane. The symptom is TCP port 88 connects succeeding followed by KRB5_KDC_UNREACH — which looks like a Kerberos or DNS problem but is a routing problem. Use availability zone switching to surface detailed error messages When ANF volume creation fails with the generic 'context deadline exceeded' error from the XMLrequest_filer endpoint, the error does not identify root cause. Redeploying the volume to a different availability zone (AZ1 to AZ2, or AZ2 to AZ3) forces a different backend assignment and consistently produces a more descriptive error that distinguishes routing failures (KRB5_KDC_UNREACH) from Kerberos authentication failures, DNS lookup failures, and LDAP errors. TIP: If the detailed error shows 'Successfully connected to ip <DC-IP>, port 88 using TCP' followed by 'Cannot contact any KDC for requested realm', the outbound path works but reply packets are dropped — this is a routing problem, not a DNS or Kerberos problem. Check vWAN Routing Intent, NVA firewall rules, and UDRs for the ANF subnet prefix. This diagnostic technique is not documented in ANF troubleshooting guidance. Required DNS records The following records must exist in the AD DNS zone served by the external DC DNS servers and must be resolvable from the ANF delegated subnet. Records marked * are not created automatically by AD DNS and must be added manually. Forward lookup zone Record Type Notes _ldap._tcp.dc._msdcs.<domain> SRV Domain-wide DC discovery _kerberos._tcp.dc._msdcs.<domain> SRV Domain-wide KDC discovery _ldap._tcp.<site>._sites.dc._msdcs.<domain> SRV Site-scoped — preferred when AD site is specified in ANF _kerberos._tcp.<site>._sites.dc._msdcs.<domain> SRV Site-scoped Kerberos _kerberos-master._tcp.<domain> * SRV NOT auto-created by AD DNS — must be added manually _kerberos-master._udp.<domain> * SRV NOT auto-created by AD DNS — must be added manually <dc-hostname> A Forward A record for each external DC in the AD site <anf-smb-hostname> A Registered by ANF via DDNS — must not be scavenged or blocked Reverse lookup zone (<reverse-octets>.in-addr.arpa) Record Type Notes PTR for each external DC IP PTR Required for dual-protocol, NFSv4.1 Kerberos, LDAP-over-TLS, and NTFS ACL operations PTR for each ANF volume IP * PTR Required for NFSv4.1 Kerberos reverse-lookup clients — create manually or via DDNS if supported How ANF internally fails when reverse DNS is missing When the reverse DNS ruleset is absent from the external private DNS forwarder, the failure does not surface as a DNS error in the ANF portal. Instead, it propagates through ANF's internal security daemon (secd) and presents as a generic InternalServerError or a Kerberos authentication failure. Understanding the internal failure chain explains why reverse DNS is non-negotiable and why the symptom is so misleading. The secd service list mechanism ANF uses an internal process called secd (Security Daemon) to manage all Active Directory communication — Kerberos ticket exchange, LDAP binds, and DC discovery. secd maintains a service list of discovered DCs. When a DC communication attempt fails for any reason, secd marks that DC as UNUSABLE and records a forgive time after which it will retry. If all DCs in the service list are simultaneously marked UNUSABLE, secd returns RESULT_ERROR_SECD_NO_SERVER_AVAILABLE, which propagates to the portal as InternalServerError. The reverse PTR lookup inside secd A critical and undocumented behavior: before secd completes a SASL/GSSAPI bind to an LDAP server, it performs a reverse PTR lookup of the DC's IP address. This lookup is used to validate the DC identity as part of Kerberos mutual authentication. If the PTR lookup fails — because the external private DNS forwarder has no reverse ruleset for the DC IP range — secd logs the failure and marks that DC UNUSABLE immediately, even though TCP connectivity on ports 88 and 389 succeeded. The following is the exact failure sequence from ANF backend logs when reverse DNS is absent: Stage 1 — TCP connects succeed, PTR lookup fails Successfully connected to ip 10.x.x.60, port 389 using TCP Entry for host-address: 10.x.x.60 not found in the current source: FILES Source: DNS unavailable. Entry for host-address: 10.x.x.60 not found in any of the available sources secd successfully opens the TCP connection to the DC on port 389 (LDAP), then immediately attempts a reverse lookup of that IP. The forwarder has no reverse ruleset, so DNS returns NXDOMAIN. secd logs 'DNS unavailable' and proceeds to mark the DC UNUSABLE. Stage 2 — GSSAPI bind fails as a consequence Unable to SASL bind to LDAP server using GSSAPI: Local error Unable to connect to LDAP (Active Directory) service on dc01.ad.contoso.com (Error: Local error) Because the PTR lookup failed, secd cannot complete the GSSAPI mutual authentication context. The 'Local error' is not a Kerberos configuration problem — it is the direct result of the identity validation step failing due to missing reverse DNS. Stage 3 — All DCs marked UNUSABLE 10.x.x.27 UNUSABLE Wed Apr 8 00:19:24 2026 10.x.x.28 UNUSABLE Wed Apr 8 00:19:24 2026 10.x.x.29 UNUSABLE Wed Apr 8 00:19:25 2026 10.x.x.30 UNUSABLE Wed Apr 8 00:19:25 2026 ... (all DCs in the service list) secd cycles through every DC in the discovered service list. Each DC fails the same PTR lookup. Each is marked UNUSABLE. Once the list is exhausted: Stage 4 — Service list exhausted, error propagates No servers in the service list which aren't marked bad Unable to select any server in the current serviceList RESULT_ERROR_SECD_NO_SERVER_AVAILABLE:6940 No servers available for MS_LDAP_AD, domain: ad.contoso.com This internal error code propagates up through the ANF volume creation stack and is presented to the operator as the generic 'context deadline exceeded (Client.Timeout exceeded while awaiting headers)' error in the portal. The actual cause — missing PTR records — is completely obscured. Stage 5 — Kerberos pre-auth error (secondary, misleading) Received error from KDC: -1765328359 / Additional pre-authentication required This Kerberos error code (KRB5KDC_ERR_PREAUTH_REQUIRED) appears in logs and can mislead investigation toward Kerberos configuration, encryption type mismatches, or clock skew. It is a downstream consequence of the failed PTR-based GSSAPI context — not a root cause. Chasing this error without first verifying reverse DNS is a common and time-consuming dead end. KEY INSIGHT: The complete failure chain is: missing reverse PTR ruleset on DNS forwarder → secd PTR lookup returns DNS unavailable → GSSAPI mutual auth cannot complete → DC marked UNUSABLE → all DCs exhausted → InternalServerError at portal. TCP connectivity on ports 88 and 389 succeeds at every stage. Only the PTR lookup fails. This is why all standard connectivity tests pass and the issue remains invisible until reverse DNS is specifically tested. Why this failure is invisible to standard troubleshooting ? Standard ANF DNS troubleshooting checks forward SRV records, forward A record resolution, and TCP port connectivity to DCs. All of these pass when only the reverse ruleset is missing. The secd PTR lookup is an internal step that occurs after TCP connectivity is confirmed and is not tested by any of the standard nslookup or Test-NetConnection commands used during initial validation. The only reliable way to surface this failure without access to backend logs is to explicitly test reverse PTR resolution from the ANF VNET — as documented in the verification section below. Verify DNS configuration Run the following commands from a test VM in the same VNET as the ANF delegated subnet. Use the external private DNS forwarder IP for client-side tests and an external DC IP for ANF-side tests. Forward SRV lookup — site-scoped nslookup -type=SRV _ldap._tcp.<SITE>._sites.dc._msdcs.<domain> <forwarder-IP> nslookup -type=SRV _kerberos._tcp.<SITE>._sites.dc._msdcs.<domain> <forwarder-IP> Forward SRV lookup — domain-wide nslookup -type=SRV _ldap._tcp.dc._msdcs.<domain> <forwarder-IP> nslookup -type=SRV _kerberos._tcp.dc._msdcs.<domain> <forwarder-IP> Reverse PTR lookup — use the external forwarder IP nslookup <external-DC-IP> <forwarder-IP> Expected output: Server: <forwarder-IP> <reverse-arpa> name = dc01.ad.contoso.com. If reverse lookup returns NXDOMAIN or times out while forward lookup succeeds, add the reverse DNS ruleset to the external private DNS forwarder. This is the most common cause of NTFS permission failures after a volume is successfully created. Port connectivity from ANF VNET Test-NetConnection -ComputerName <external-DC-IP> -Port 88 # Kerberos Test-NetConnection -ComputerName <external-DC-IP> -Port 389 # LDAP Test-NetConnection -ComputerName <forwarder-IP> -Port 53 # DNS Common issues and resolutions Symptom Likely cause Resolution InternalServerError: context deadline exceeded (XMLrequest_filer) Generic ANF backend timeout — routing or Kerberos root cause not visible at this level Switch deployment availability zone for a detailed error. Check vWAN Routing Intent for ANF /26 prefix. KRB5_KDC_UNREACH — TCP port 88 connects succeed but auth fails Return traffic from external DCs dropped before reaching ANF NIC — routing issue, not DNS Add ANF subnet /26 to vWAN Hub Routing Intent > Additional Prefixes > Private Traffic 'Cannot determine whether the computer is joined to a domain' — NTFS permissions Reverse DNS (PTR) lookup failing on external forwarder for DC IPs Add reverse lookup ruleset to external private DNS forwarder: <reverse-zone>.in-addr.arpa. > external DC IPs DDNS fails — SMB hostname not in DNS after volume creation ANF AD connection DNS IPs point to external forwarder — GSS-TSIG not supported by forwarder Set AD connection DNS IPs to writable Microsoft AD-integrated external DC IPs directly 'Failed to validate LDAP configuration' during dual-protocol creation Missing PTR records for external DCs, or reverse zone unreachable Add PTR records for all external DCs. Verify reverse ruleset is present on the forwarder. NFSv4.1 Kerberos: 'Cannot determine realm for numeric host address' Missing PTR for ANF volume IP or external DC IPs Add PTR records for ANF volume IPs and all external DC IPs in the reverse zone. SMB hostname resolves on-premises but not from Azure VMs External private DNS forwarder missing forward ruleset for AD zone, or targeting wrong DC IPs Verify forward ruleset is present and targeting reachable writable external DC IPs. Volume creation fails after external DC IP change External DNS forwarder (especially BIND) caching stale DC IPs — default TTL up to 7 days Flush forwarder cache. Set short TTLs on DC A records. Consider Microsoft AD-integrated DNS for AD zones. Summary of key requirements: ANF AD connection DNS IPs must point to writable Microsoft AD-integrated DNS servers (external DC IPs) — not the external private DNS forwarder, not Azure DNS Private Resolver, not 168.63.129.16. The external private DNS forwarder must have both a forward ruleset (AD domain > external DC IPs) and a reverse ruleset (in-addr.arpa. zone for DC IP ranges > external DC IPs). The reverse ruleset is required for NTFS ACL operations on SMB shares and is not mentioned in ANF documentation. 168.63.129.16 is the upstream forwarder target on the external DNS forwarder — not a target in the ANF AD connection. It is unreachable from on-premises and is not AD-aware. External private DNS forwarders (Infoblox, BIND, Unbound) do not support GSS-TSIG. Placing a forwarder IP in the ANF AD connection causes silent DDNS failure with no portal error. In Virtual WAN deployments, add the ANF delegated subnet /26 to the hub Routing Intent under Additional Prefixes for Private Traffic. The broader VNET prefix alone is not sufficient. NFSv3 volume creation success does not indicate SMB readiness — NFSv3 uses the IP directly and bypasses AD, Kerberos, and reverse DNS. _kerberos-master SRV records are not created automatically by AD DNS and must be added manually. DNS scavenging should be disabled on zones containing ANF records, or records pre-created as static entries, as ANF does not aggressively refresh DDNS registrations. When volume creation fails with a generic 'context deadline exceeded' error, switch the deployment availability zone before deep troubleshooting to surface a more descriptive error. Related documentation: Understand Domain Name Systems in Azure NetApp Files Guidelines for Azure NetApp Files network planning Configure Virtual WAN for Azure NetApp Files Create and manage Active Directory connections for Azure NetApp Files Create and manage reverse DNS zones in Azure Private DNS Understand guidelines for Active Directory Domain Services site design and planning How to configure Virtual WAN Hub routing policies What is IP address 168.63.129.16?Enabling Agentic Data Governance with Hybrid Cloud Flexibility in Azure
The “Why” Do you manage data in a complex multi-cloud environment? Are you struggling with data silos, evolving regulations, and the pressure to maintain control and compliance across on-prem and multiple clouds? Do you ever wish an intelligent assistant could help shoulder the load of data governance? If so, I can relate. Let me tell you a story that might sound familiar. Meet Mark (pictured above). He is a data governance officer at Contoso (a fictional but very representative enterprise). Mark’s day job is ensuring data governance and compliance across his company’s vast hybrid cloud estate – think around ~2 million data assets sprawled across 12+ datacenters on-premises and in different public clouds. Regulatory requirements are constantly shifting. Customer data is increasingly sensitive. Each department and region has its own way of doing things. Mark is fighting an uphill battle with data silos and disconnected cloud operations. He bounces between a patchwork of tools – spreadsheets, cloud consoles, governance portals – trying to answer basic questions: Where is our data? Who’s using it? Are we in compliance? Armed with an old desk calculator and a pile of paper-based reports (a perfect 1990s backdrop), he is dealing with the data around him that has exploded in volume and complexity. What if Mark had a single pane of glass. The glass that reflects and acts. It reflects your governance state and enforces compliance – a self-hydrating pane of glass accompanied by a conversational AI. And he’s not alone. We’re all living in a data overload era. Every day, organizations generate and ingest more information than ever before. Transistors and mainframes gave way to the internet boom of the ’90s, then an explosion of mobile devices in the 2000s, social media in the 2010s, and now widespread cloud computing – all funneling data into our systems at an exponential rate. On top of that, a new wave of AI and conversational interfaces has arrived here in the mid-2020s, making data more accessible but also increasing expectations for real-time insight. It’s no wonder modern IT leaders feel overwhelmed. But these challenges are also opportunities. The way I see it, the incredible growth of data and cloud capabilities means we have a chance to reimagine data governance. The fact that I’m writing about this right now is no coincidence. My customers are looking to resolve problems in this space. In my conversations with them, I hear the same needs: We want better governance, more visibility, streamlined oversight… and cherry on top, we want it in an “agentic” fashion. In other words, they want to delegate the grunt work to the platform toolset augmented by AI, so they can focus on higher-value tasks. The “What” That vision – agentic data governance with hybrid cloud flexibility – became the driver for this work. This is a modular solution, and you have these building block style components (cloud services, governance tools, AI agents), which you can snap them together into an intended solution. Think of it as a jumpstart kit for continuous data governance across multiple clouds, with autonomous (“agentic”) assistance baked in that you can leverage and build upon. It’s not the final, productized solution – more a vision of what’s possible. Contoso’s Requirements These are the high-level requirements from Contoso: Data governance across clouds under one roof A single pane of glass dashboard consolidating reporting on the 5 governance domains: o Visibility on data residency and lineage o PII (Personally Identifiable Information) must run on a CC (Confidential Compute) o Security software (Defender) compliance o Resource tagging compliance (foundational for a good governance posture) o OS updates compliance Ability to enforce compliance in an agentic manner with a human in the loop Agentic enforcement of compliance pertaining to residency and confidential compute Solution – The breakdown The solution is comprised of 8 modules addressing these requirements. These solution modules are: Foundational (Landing zones, Data Sources, Operational setup, Policies, etc.) Dashboard Hydration + Agentic Reporting – Residency Compliance Dashboard Hydration + Agentic Reporting – Confidential Compute for PII Compliance Dashboard Hydration + Agentic Reporting – MS Defender Compliance Dashboard Hydration + Agentic Reporting – Resource Tag Compliance Dashboard Hydration + Agentic Reporting – OS Updates/Patch Compliance Enforce Compliance via Copilot Agent - Residency Compliance Enforce Compliance via Copilot Agent – CC PII Compliance Solution – The architecture view These are the main technical components that make up the solution architecture: Data sources of all shapes and sizes on the left, governed by the native Azure or the Arc plane. Additional Azure services across the bottom layer for the foundational governance posture Microsoft Purview, in the top middle, as the unified data governance platform Microsoft Fabric, in the bottom middle, as the end-to-end ingestion and analytics platform Microsoft Power Platform, on the right, as the low code/no code business flow and the copilot agent experience Solution – The end user view So how does Mark see this solution as a data governance officer? He doesn’t see all the intricacies of the solution integration and the logic execution. He sees two things: A Power BI dashboard running on Microsoft Fabric with A compliance dashboard with an overall score in each of the five compliance domains alongside scores for each of the data products across these domains Additional reporting views for more granular reporting Fabric-based pipeline that hydrates the underlying semantic models from various sources to keep the reports fresh and current A Copilot agent (in Teams) for both: Reporting on all compliance domains Enforcing in-scope compliance across selected domains The agent takes care of it - queries Fabric’s semantic model, calls Azure Function endpoints, updates Purview glossary terms, applies Azure tags, and sends Teams notifications. The “How” – Residency Compliance Let’s pick a few modules to walk through how these solution modules work together to give a cohesive agentic governance experience to Mark. It’s Monday morning, and Mark logs into the Contoso governance portal with a cup of coffee in hand. Instead of a dozen browser tabs, he has two main tools opened: the Data Governance Dashboard and the Contoso Governance Copilot agent. To address some inquiries that came as an assigned action to him, he interacted with the agent. During this interaction, not only did he validate if there were any residency missing in the unified data governance platform (Purview), but he was also able to address a mismatch between Purview and Azure resource, based on the designed principles. Here is the snippet of the chat: Now, under the hood, several components have worked on behalf of the agent in performing this governance checking and applying the necessary course of action: Even before Mark's conversation with the agent, an ongoing hydration process keeps the Fabric Power BI dashboard up to date. Dashboard Hydration + Agentic Reporting – Residency Compliance A Fabric notebook runs the residency scorecard code block through a pipeline. It reads two Lakehouse tables containing latest residency information from Purview and the approved region list Then, the notebook gets a Microsoft Entra bearer token Once acquired, the notebook then calls an Azure Function endpoint This endpoint, then searches for the Azure resources associated with the data products in Purview using an Azure resource tag. The notebook then compares the declared Purview residency with the approved region list and the associated resource’s region The notebook then calculates the final 0 / 25 / 50 / 75 / 100 residency compliance score and a reason. For example: A data product without an associated Azure resource gets a 0, while a data product whose residency in Purview is an approved region by Contoso, and also matches with the associated Azure resource, gets a 100. It then writes the results to the relevant residency compliance Lakehouse tables The dedicated compliance table then feeds to the semantic model for reporting The compliance Power BI dashboard is hydrated Enforce Compliance via Copilot Agent - Residency Compliance With the dashboard data regularly updated, the agent follows this logic, the updated reporting data, and the actions at its disposal, during the earlier conversation with Mark : Mark initiates the conversation with the agent The agent calls a Power Automate flow This flow retrieves Purview’s residency information stored in the Fabric semantic model 5, 6, 7 and 8. When Mark asks to investigate further on a data product, the agent carries the conversation using a topic, which then leverages a flow, which uses a Power Automate custom connector to access an Azure Function endpoint. This endpoint then retrieves latest glossary (residency) information about the data product in question, from Purview, and provides a preview back to the user 10, 11, 12, and 13. If the update criteria are met, and if there is no conflict, and with Mark’s blessings, the topic then calls another flow to access the Functions Purview Update endpoint, and make the glossary (residency) update in Purview for that data product The “How” – Confidential Compute for PII Compliance Dashboard Hydration + Agentic Reporting – Confidential Compute for PII Compliance The following snippet shows how Mark addresses the compliance risk with a critical data product (application), S/4 HANA, and performed the necessary compliance actions, such as tagging the associated resources and notifying the data product owners via Teams channel. The following diagram shows the under-the-hood hydration flow for confidential compute compliance: Enforce Compliance via Copilot Agent – CC PII Compliance Finally, the diagram below shows how Mark’s conversation flows through the main solution components: Outcome Stepping back, what did we accomplish for Mark and Contoso? We turned an onslaught of governance challenges into an opportunity to modernize how data is managed. This gave Mark: Centralized Visibility into data assets across the landscape through Purview and a unified dashboard Proactive compliance enabled with automated checks - controlled with Purview exports and Fabric pipeline schedules And compliance enforcement using an agent Hybrid Cloud Consistency. By using Azure Arc and a foundational data plane management setup Reduced Operational overhead with agentic reporting and compliance Though the solution is comprised of wide variety of components/services, it is built from standard building blocks and is relatively simple to implement. In total, the solution combined around a dozen Azure services and over 40 distinct components (from Purview catalogs to data pipelines, to custom functions and flows). You can choose to implement some or all the compliance domains. Or, better yet, build upon and create new domains and pave new paths. Wrap-up I believe many enterprises could take a similar journey. If you’re facing these issues, consider this an invitation to think differently about data governance. Start with the pieces you already have – your own building blocks of cloud services and data – and imagine what you could build. Chances are that a lot of the heavy lifting can be orchestrated with today’s technology. And with the rise of AI copilots, the dream of agentic data governance – where your policies are continuously enforced by smart agents – is no longer science fiction. It’s here, right now, waiting for you to take it for a spin. Next steps Watch the video narrative on SAP on Azure YouTube channel: Build it with the GitHub Repository: https://github.com/moazmirza/data-sov-and-hyb-cloud Comments/questions: Here, or @ LinkedIn /moazmirza Solution Selfies Azure Policy Compliance - Foundational Governance Posture Purview Data Product Catalog and Data Lineage Purview Governance Metadata à Fabric Lakehouse Fabric Semantic Model Additional Fabric Power BI Dashboard Copilot Studio Topic Flow Azure Function Endpoints
