Azure traffic to storage account
Hello, I’ve set up a storage account in Tenant A, located in the AUEast region, with public access. I also created a VM in Tenant B, in the same region (AUEast). I’m able to use IP whitelisting on the storage account in Tenant A to allow traffic only from the VM in Tenant B. However, in the App Insights logs, the traffic appears as 10.X.X.X, likely because the VM is in the same region. I'm unsure why the public IP isn't reflected in the logs. Moreover, I am not sure about this part https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/storage/common/storage-network-security-limitations#:~:text=You%20can%27t%20use%20IP%20network%20rules%20to%20restrict%20access%20to%20clients%20in%20the%20same%20Azure%20region%20as%20the%20storage%20account.%20IP%20network%20rules%20have%20no%20effect%20on%20requests%20that%20originate%20from%20the%20same%20Azure%20region%20as%20the%20storage%20account.%20Use%20Virtual%20network%20rules%20to%20allow%20same%2Dregion%20requests. This seems contradictory, as IP whitelisting is working on the storage account. I assume the explanation above applies only when the client is hosted in the same tenant and region as the storage account, and not when the client is in a different tenant, even if it's in the same region. I’d appreciate it if someone could shed some light on this. Thanks, MohsenAzure Networking Portfolio Consolidation
Overview Over the past decade, Azure Networking has expanded rapidly, bringing incredible tools and capabilities to help customers build, connect, and secure their cloud infrastructure. But we've also heard strong feedback: with over 40 different products, it hasn't always been easy to navigate and find the right solution. The complexity often led to confusion, slower onboarding, and missed capabilities. That's why we're excited to introduce a more focused, streamlined, and intuitive experience across Azure.com, the Azure portal, and our documentation pivoting around four core networking scenarios: Network foundations: Network foundations provide the core connectivity for your resources, using Virtual Network, Private Link, and DNS to build the foundation for your Azure network. Try it with this link: Network foundations Hybrid connectivity: Hybrid connectivity securely connects on-premises, private, and public cloud environments, enabling seamless integration, global availability, and end-to-end visibility, presenting major opportunities as organizations advance their cloud transformation. Try it with this link: Hybrid connectivity Load balancing and content delivery: Load balancing and content delivery helps you choose the right option to ensure your applications are fast, reliable, and tailored to your business needs. Try it with this link: Load balancing and content delivery Network security: Securing your environment is just as essential as building and connecting it. The Network Security hub brings together Azure Firewall, DDoS Protection, and Web Application Firewall (WAF) to provide a centralized, unified approach to cloud protection. With unified controls, it helps you manage security more efficiently and strengthen your security posture. Try it with this link: Network security This new structure makes it easier to discover the right networking services and get started with just a few clicks so you can focus more on building, and less on searching. What you’ll notice: Clearer starting points: Azure Networking is now organized around four core scenarios and twelve essential services, reflecting the most common customer needs. Additional services are presented within the context of these scenarios, helping you stay focused and find the right solution without feeling overwhelmed. Simplified choices: We’ve merged overlapping or closely related services to reduce redundancy. That means fewer, more meaningful options that are easier to evaluate and act on. Sunsetting outdated services: To reduce clutter and improve clarity, we’re sunsetting underused offerings such as white-label CDN services and China CDN. These capabilities have been rolled into newer, more robust services, so you can focus on what’s current and supported. What this means for you Faster decision-making: With clearer guidance and fewer overlapping products, it's easier to discover what you need and move forward confidently. More productive sales conversations: With this simplified approach, you’ll get more focused recommendations and less confusion among sellers. Better product experience: This update makes the Azure Networking portfolio more cohesive and consistent, helping you get started quickly, stay aligned with best practices, and unlock more value from day one. The portfolio consolidation initiative is a strategic effort to simplify and enhance the Azure Networking portfolio, ensuring better alignment with customer needs and industry best practices. By focusing on top-line services, combining related products, and retiring outdated offerings, Azure Networking aims to provide a more cohesive and efficient product experience. Azure.com Before: Our original Solution page on Azure.com was disorganized and static, displaying a small portion of services in no discernable order. After: The revised solution page is now dynamic, allowing customers to click deeper into each networking and network security category, displaying the top line services, simplifying the customer experience. Azure Portal Before: With over 40 networking services available, we know it can feel overwhelming to figure out what’s right for you and where to get started. After: To make it easier, we've introduced four streamlined networking hubs each built around a specific scenario to help you quickly identify the services that match your needs. Each offers an overview to set the stage, key services to help you get started, guidance to support decision-making, and a streamlined left-hand navigation for easy access to all services and features. Documentation For documentation, we looked at our current assets as well as created new assets that aligned with the changes in the portal experience. Like Azure.com, we found the old experiences were disorganized and not well aligned. We updated our assets to focus on our top-line networking services, and to call out the pillars. Our belief is these changes will allow our customers to more easily find the relevant and important information they need for their Azure infrastructure. Azure Network Hub Before the updates, we had a hub page organized around different categories and not well laid out. In the updated hub page, we provided relevant links for top-line services within all of the Azure networking scenarios, as well as a section linking to each scenario's hub page. Scenario Hub pages We added scenario hub pages for each of the scenarios. This provides our customers with a central hub for information about the top-line services for each scenario and how to get started. Also, we included common scenarios and use cases for each scenario, along with references for deeper learning across the Azure Architecture Center, Well Architected Framework, and Cloud Adoption Framework libraries. Scenario Overview articles We created new overview articles for each scenario. These articles were designed to provide customers with an introduction to the services included in each scenario, guidance on choosing the right solutions, and an introduction to the new portal experience. Here's the Load balancing and content delivery overview: Documentation links Azure Networking hub page: Azure networking documentation | Microsoft Learn Scenario Hub pages: Azure load balancing and content delivery | Microsoft Learn Azure network foundation documentation | Microsoft Learn Azure hybrid connectivity documentation | Microsoft Learn Azure network security documentation | Microsoft Learn Scenario Overview pages What is load balancing and content delivery? | Microsoft Learn Azure Network Foundation Services Overview | Microsoft Learn What is hybrid connectivity? | Microsoft Learn What is Azure network security? | Microsoft Lea Improving user experience is a journey and in coming months we plan to do more on this. Watch out for more blogs over the next few months for further improvements.Connectivity options between Hub-and-Spoke and Azure Virtual WAN
Contents Overview Scenario 1 – Traffic hair-pinning using ExpressRoute Scenario 2 – Build a virtual tunnel (SD-WAN or IPSec) Scenario 3 – vNet Peering and vHub connection coexistence Scenario 4 – Transit virtual network for decentralized vNets Conclusion Bonus Overview This article is going to discuss different options that interconnect the Hub and Spoke networking with Virtual WAN for migrations scenarios. The goal of this article is to expand on additional options that can help customers to migrate to their existing Hub and Spoke topology to Azure Virtual WAN. You can find a comprehensive article Migrate to Azure Virtual WAN to go over several considerations during the migration process. The focus of this article is to focus only on the connectivity to facilitate the migration process. Therefore, it is important to note that the interconnectivity options listed here are intended to be used in the short term to ensure a temporary coexistence between both topologies while the workload on the Spoke vNets with the end goal of disconnecting both environments after migration is completed. This article mainly discusses scenarios with a Virtual WAN Secured Virtual Hub; exceptions are noted where applicable. The setup assumes the use of routing intent and route policies, replacing the previous approach of using route tables to secure Virtual Hubs. For more information, please consult: How to configure Virtual WAN Hub routing intent and routing policies. Scenario 1 – Traffic hair-pinning using ExpressRoute circuits To begin the migration, ensure that the target Virtual WAN Hub (vHub) includes all necessary components. For existing vHubs equipped with Firewalls, SD-WAN, VPN (Point-to-Site or Site-to-Site), confirm that these elements are also present and correctly configured on the target Virtual WAN. Additionally, for any migrated Spoke, an optional vNet peering can be maintained to the original Hub vNet if there are dependencies, such as shared services (DNS, Active Directory, and other services). Make sure that the peering configuration has the option for using remote gateway disabled, because once connected to the vHub, the vNet connection requires using remote gateway to be enabled. On this scenario traffic between Hub and Spoke and Virtual WAN Hub is facilitated using an ExpressRoute circuit that is connected to both environments. When a single circuit is connected to both environments’ routes will be exchanged between both environments, and it will hairpin at the MSEE (Microsoft Enterprise Edge) routers. This scenario is a similar approach used described in the article: Migrate to Azure Virtual WAN. Connectivity flow: Source Destination Data Path Spoke vNet Migrated Spokes vNets 1. vNet Hub Firewall 2. vNet ExpressRoute Gateway 3. MSEE via Hairpin 4. vHub ExpressRoute Gateway 5. vHub Firewall Spoke vNet Branches (VPN/SD-WAN) 1. vNet Hub Firewall 2. vNet SD-WAN NVA or VPN Gateway Spoke vNet On-premises DC 1. vNet Hub Firewall 2. ExpressRoute Gateway 3. ExpressRoute Circuit (MSEE) 4. Provider/Customer Migrated vNet Branches (VPN/SD-WAN) 1. vHub Firewall 2. vHub SD-WAN NVA or VPN Gateway Migrated vNet On-premises DC 1. vNet Hub Firewall 2. vNet ExpressRoute Gateway 3. ExpressRoute Circuit (MSEE) 4. Provider/Customer Note: Connectivity also considers that return traffic follows the same path and components. Pros Traffic stays in the Microsoft Backbone and does not go over the Provider or Customer CPE. Built-in route provided by the Azure Platform (this is configurable, see considerations). Cons Expect high latency. Traffic between VNET Hub and vHubs crosses MSEE routers outside the Azure Region in a Cloud Exchange facility, increasing latency due to the distance to the region. Single point of failure. Because the MSEE is located at the Edge location, an outage at that site can impact communication. To ensure redundancy, you can utilize a second MSEE at a different Edge location within the same metro area to achieve redundancy and lower latency. Additionally, a second MSEE in different metro areas can also provide redundancy, although this might result in increased latency. Considerations A new feature has been introduced to block MSEE hairpin. To enable this scenario, you need to activate Allow Traffic from remote Virtual WAN Networks (on VNET Hub side) and Allow Traffic from non-Virtual WAN Networks (on Virtual WAN Hub side). For more details, refer to this article: Customisation controls for connectivity between Virtual Networks over ExpressRoute.. Scenario 2 – Build a virtual tunnel (SD-WAN or IPSec) The same prerequisites for the target vHub apply for this option before beginning the migration. However, instead of utilizing ExpressRoute transit, in this scenario you establish a direct virtual tunnel between the existing VNET Hub and the vHub to facilitate communication. There are several options for achieving this, including: Use Azure native VPN Gateway on both VNET Hub and vHub for IPSec tunnels. Up to four tunnels can be created when VNET Hub VPN Gateway is configured to Active/Active (by default, vHub VPN Gateways are already Active/Active). It is important to consider that customers can use either BGP or static routing when implementing this option. However, BGP will be restricted, if the VNET VPN Gateway is the only gateway present, you can use custom ASN other than 65515. If there is another gateway, such as ExpressRoute or Azure Route Server, ASN must be set to 65515. Since vHub VPN Gateway does not allow custom ASN at this moment (65515 is the default ASN), static routes will be required for this setup. Use 3 rd party NVA to establish SD-WAN connectivity between both sides or IPSec tunnel. Using this option, you can leverage either static or BGP routing, where BGP will offer better integration with vHub and less administrative effort. Connectivity flow: Source Destination Data Path Spoke vNet Migrated Spokes vNets 1. vNet Hub Firewall 2. vNet Hub SD-WAN NVA or VPN Gateway 3. vHub Hub SD-WAN NVA or VPN Gateway 4. vHub Firewall Spoke vNet Branches (VPN/SD-WAN) 1. vNet Hub Firewall 2. vNet Hub SD-WAN NVA or VPN Gateway Spoke vNet On-premises DC 1. vNet Hub Firewall 2. ExpressRoute Gateway 3. MSEE Hairpin 4. Provider/Customer Migrated vNet Branches (VPN/SD-WAN) 1. vHub Firewall 2. SD-WAN NVA or VPN Gateway Migrated vNet On-premises DC 1. vNet Hub Firewall 2. ExpressRoute Gateway 3. MSEE Hairpin 4. Provider/Customer Note: Connectivity also considers that return traffic follows the same path and components. Pros Traffic remains within the Microsoft Backbone in the region, resulting in lower latency compared to Option 1. Cons Administrative overhead when using static routes and managing extra network components. Cost of adding a new VPN Gateway or 3 rd party NVA to build the virtual tunnel Throughput may be limited based on the type of virtual tunnel technology used. This limitation can be mitigated by adding multiple tunnels, which require BGP + ECMP to balance traffic between them. It is important to note that Azure allows up to eight tunnels, which is the maximum number of programmed routes for the same networks with different next hops, indicating the specific tunnel. Scenario 3 – vNet Peering and vHub connection coexistence In this scenario, spokes vNet originally connected to vNet Hub are migrated to the vHub while maintaining existing peering with the vNet Hub but with the Use Remote Gateway configuration disabled. This allows the migrated vNets to retain connectivity with the source vNet Hub while also connecting to the vHub. The connection to the vHub necessitates the Use Remote Gateway, which directs all traffic towards on-premises to use the vHub. To connect with other spokes via vHub, the migrated vNet needs a UDR with routes to the vNet spoke prefixes using the vNet Hub Firewall as the next hop. Use route summarization for contiguous prefixes or enter specific prefixes if they are not. Additionally, enable Gateway Propagation in the UDR so migrated Spoke vNets can learn routes from the vHub (RFC 1918, default route, or both). Connectivity flow: Source Destination Data Path Spoke vNet Migrated Spokes vNet 1. vNet Hub Firewall Spoke vNet Branches (VPN/SD-WAN) 1. vNet Hub Firewall 2. vNet SD-WAN NVA or VPN Gateway Spoke vNet On-premises DC 1. vNet Hub Firewall 2. ExpressRoute Gateway 3. ExpressRoute Circuit (MSEE) 4. Provider/Customer Migrated vNet Branches (VPN/SD-WAN) 1. vHub Firewall 2. vHub SD-WAN NVA or VPN Gateway Migrated vNet On-premises DC 1. vHub Firewall 2. vHub ExpressRoute Gateway 3. ExpressRoute Circuit (MSEE) 4. Provider/Customer Note: Connectivity means that return traffic follows the same path and components. Pros Traffic remains within the Microsoft Backbone in the region, resulting in lower latency compared to option 1. No throughput limitation imposed by virtual tunnels compared to option 2. Throughput will be limited by the VM size. Cons Administrative overhead to adjust the UDR to reach the Spoke vNets on connected over the vNet Hub. Scenario 4 – Transit virtual network for decentralized vNets This use case involves a decentralized virtual network model where each customer has an ExpressRoute Gateway for connectivity to on-premises systems. Traffic between virtual networks is managed using virtual network peering, based on the specific connectivity requirements of the customer. Each virtual network has its own gateway, which prevents connecting them directly to the virtual hub because the remote gateway option needs to be enabled. If the customer can tolerate the downtime associated with removing the Express Route Gateway from the migrated vNet, they have the option to establish a direct vNet connection to the vHub, thereby simplifying the solution. This process typically takes approximately 45 minutes, excluding the rollback procedure which would require an additional 45 minutes, potentially making this approach prohibitive for most customers. However, customers with existing Azure workloads often aim to minimize downtime. As illustrated in the diagram below, they can create a transit vNet equipped with a firewall or a Network Virtual Appliance (NVA) with routing capabilities. This configuration allows the migrated vNet to establish regular peering, thereby maintaining connectivity without significant disruption. The solution illustrated on this section uses a static route propagation at the vNet connection level towards the Transit vNet, which now requires non Secured-Virtual WAN hubs (note that support for static route propagation is on the Virtual WAN roadmap). Alternatively, you can use BGP peering from the Firewall or NVA to program the migrated vNets summary prefixes. For Firewall implementations with BGP it is recommended to leverage Next hop IP support for Virtual WAN where traffic flows over a load balance feature to ensure traffic symmetry. In that scenario you can also leverage Secured-vHubs. The migration process also necessitates adjustments to the routes for the migrated vNET to facilitate traffic flow to on-premises systems using the vHUB. This includes utilizing static routes at the connection from the Transit vNet to the vHub to advertise a summary route via the Firewall in the transit vNET to ensure return traffic and proper advertisement to the on-premises environment. Once the route configurations are established, the ExpressRoute connection can be removed. The customer can then proceed to Step 2, which will allow them to make the final adjustments and complete the full integration with the vHub following the outlined steps. Remove ExpressRoute Gateway. Create the vNet connection to the vHub, that will allow the specific Migrated vNet prefix to advertise to the vHub as well as leak down to the ExpressRoute. Once the step 2 is completed the traffic should start to flow over the vNET connection to the Vub. Removed the vNet peering to the Transit vNET. Connectivity flow: Source Destination Data Path vNet1/VNet2 Migrated Spokes vNet 1. Direct vNet peering vNet1/VNet2 Branches (VPN/SD-WAN) 1. ExpressRoute Gateway 2. ExpressRoute Circuit (MSEE) 3. Provider/Customer 4. VPN/SD-WAN vNet1/VNet2 On-premises DC 1. ExpressRoute Gateway 2. ExpressRoute Circuit (MSEE) 3. Provider/Customer Migrated vNet (Step1) Branches (VPN/SD-WAN) 1. Transit Firewall 2. vHub SD-WAN NVA or VPN Gateway Migrated vNet (Step1) On-premises DC 1. Transit Firewall 2. vHub ExpressRoute Gateway 3. ExpressRoute Circuit (MSEE) 4. Provider/Customer Migrated vNet (Step2) Branches (VPN/SD-WAN) 1. vHub SD-WAN NVA or VPN Gateway Migrated vNet (Step2) On-premises DC 1. vHub ExpressRoute Gateway 2. ExpressRoute Circuit (MSEE) 3. Provider/Customer Note: Connectivity means that return traffic follows the same path and components. Pros Traffic remains on the Microsoft backbone, ensuring minimal latency. Not the same throughput limits associated with option 2 solution (virtual tunnels). Cons Administrative overhead associated with maintaining the additional transit virtual network, including user-defined route management and vHub vNet Connection static route configuration. Costs incurred from operating any supplementary firewalls (FWs) or network virtual appliances (NVAs) in the transit vNet. Conclusion This article outlined four strategies for migrating from Hub and Spoke networking to Azure Virtual WAN—ExpressRoute hair pinning, VPN or SD-WAN virtual tunnels, vNet peering with vHub connections, and transit virtual networks for decentralized vNets—highlighting their pros, cons, and administrative considerations. It is important to assess which approach best fits your needs by weighing each scenario's advantages and drawbacks. Bonus The diagrams in Excalidraw format related to this blog post are available in the following GitHub repository.Network Redundancy Between AVS, On-Premises, and Virtual Networks in a Multi-Region Design
By Mays_Algebary shruthi_nair Establishing redundant network connectivity is vital to ensuring the availability, reliability, and performance of workloads operating in hybrid and cloud environments. Proper planning and implementation of network redundancy are key to achieving high availability and sustaining operational continuity. This article focuses on network redundancy in multi-region architecture. For details on single-region design, refer to this blog. The diagram below illustrates a common network design pattern for multi-region deployments, using either a Hub-and-Spoke or Azure Virtual WAN (vWAN) topology, and serves as the baseline for establishing redundant connectivity throughout this article. In each region, the Hub or Virtual Hub (VHub) extends Azure connectivity to Azure VMware Solution (AVS) via an ExpressRoute circuit. The regional Hub/VHub is connected to on-premises environments by cross-connecting (bowtie) both local and remote ExpressRoute circuits, ensuring redundancy. The concept of weight, used to influence traffic routing preferences, will be discussed in the next section. The diagram below illustrates the traffic flow when both circuits are up and running. Design Considerations If a region loses its local ExpressRoute connection, AVS in that region will lose connectivity to the on-premises environment. However, VNets will still retain connectivity to on-premises via the remote region’s ExpressRoute circuit. The solutions discussed in this article aim to ensure redundancy for both AVS and VNets. Looking at the diagram above, you might wonder: why do we need to set weights at all, and why do the AVS-ER connections (1b/2b) use the same weight as the primary on-premises connections (1a/2a)? Weight is used to influence routing decisions and ensure optimal traffic flow. In this scenario, both ExpressRoute circuits, ER1-EastUS and ER2-WestUS, advertise the same prefixes to the Azure ExpressRoute gateway. As a result, traffic from the VNet to on-premises would be ECMPed across both circuits. To avoid suboptimal routing and ensure that traffic from the VNets prefers the local ExpressRoute circuit, a higher weight is assigned to the local path. It’s also critical that the ExpressRoute gateway connection to on-premises (1a/2a) and to AVS (1b/2b), is assigned the same weight. Otherwise, traffic from the VNet to AVS will follow a less efficient route as AVS routes are also learned over ER1-EastUS via Global Reach. For instance, VNets in EastUS will connect to AVS EUS through ER1-EastUS circuit via Global Reach (as shown by the blue dotted line), instead of using the direct local path (orange line). This suboptimal routing is illustrated in the below diagram. Now let us see what solutions we can have to achieve redundant connectivity. The following solutions will apply to both Hub-and-Spoke and vWAN topology unless noted otherwise. Note: The diagrams in the upcoming solutions will focus only on illustrating the failover traffic flow. Solution1: Network Redundancy via ExpressRoute in Different Peering Location In the solution, deploy an additional ExpressRoute circuit in a different peering location within the same metro area (e.g., ER2–PeeringLocation2), and enable Global Reach between this new circuit and the existing AVS ExpressRoute (e.g., AVS-ER1). If you intend to use this second circuit as a failover path, apply prepends to the on-premises prefixes advertised over it. Alternatively, if you want to use it as an active-active redundant path, do not prepend routes, in this case, both AVS and Azure VNets will ECMP to distribute traffic across both circuits (e.g., ER1–EastUS and ER–PeeringLocation2) when both are available. Note: Compared to the Standard Topology, this design removes both the ExpressRoute cross-connect (bowtie) and weight settings. When adding a second circuit in the same metro, there's no benefit in keeping them, otherwise traffic from the Azure VNet will prefer the local AVS circuit (AVS-ER1/AVS-ER2) to reach on-premises due to the higher weight, as on-premises routes are also learned over AVS circuit (AVS-ER1/AVS-ER2) via Global Reach. Also, when connecting the new circuit (e.g., ER–Peering Location2), remove all weight settings across the connections. Traffic will follow the optimal path based on BGP prepending on the new circuit, or load-balance (ECMP) if no prepend is applied. Note: Use public ASN to prepend the on-premises prefix as AVS circuit (e.g., AVS-ER) will strip the private ASN toward AVS. Solution Insights Ideal for mission-critical applications, providing predictable throughput and bandwidth for backup. It could be cost prohibitive depending on the bandwidth of the second circuit. Solution2: Network Redundancy via ExpressRoute Direct In this solution, ExpressRoute Direct is used to provision multiple circuits from a single port pair in each region, for example, ER2-WestUS and ER4-WestUS are created from the same port pair. This allows you to dedicate one circuit for local traffic and another for failover to a remote region. To ensure optimal routing, prepend the on-premises prefixes using public ASN on the newly created circuit (e.g., ER3-EastUS and ER4-WestUS). Remove all weight settings across the connections; traffic will follow the optimal path based on BGP prepending on the new circuit. For instance, if ER1-EastUS becomes unavailable, traffic from AVS and VNets in the EastUS region will automatically route through ER4-WestUS circuit, ensuring continuity. Note: Compared to the Standard Topology, this design connects the newly created ExpressRoute circuits (e.g., ER3-EastUS/ER4-WestUS) to the remote region of ExpressRoute gateway (black dotted lines) instead of having the bowtie to the primary circuits (e.g., ER1-EastUS/ER2-WestUS). Solution Insights Easy to implement if you have ExpressRoute Direct. ExpressRoute Direct supports over- provisioning where you can create logical ExpressRoute circuits on top of your existing ExpressRoute Direct resource of 10-Gbps or 100-Gbps up to the subscribed Bandwidth of 20 Gbps or 200 Gbps. For example, you can create two 10-Gbps ExpressRoute circuits within a single 10-Gbps ExpressRoute Direct resource (port pair). Ideal for mission-critical applications, providing predictable throughput and bandwidth for backup. Solution3: Network Redundancy via ExpressRoute Metro Metro ExpressRoute is a new configuration that enables dual-homed connectivity to two different peering locations within the same city. This setup enhances resiliency by allowing traffic to continue flowing even if one peering location goes down, using the same circuit. Solution Insights Higher Resiliency: Provides increased reliability with a single circuit. Limited regional availability: Currently available in select regions, with more being added over time. Cost-effective: Offers redundancy without significantly increasing costs. Solution4: Deploy VPN as a Backup to ExpressRoute This solution mirrors solution 1 for a single region but extends it to multiple regions. In this approach, a VPN serves as the backup path for each region in the event of an ExpressRoute failure. In a Hub-and-Spoke topology, a backup path to and from AVS can be established by deploying Azure Route Server (ARS) in the hub VNet. ARS enables seamless transit routing between ExpressRoute and the VPN gateway. In vWAN topology, ARS is not required; the vHub's built-in routing service automatically provides transitive routing between the VPN gateway and ExpressRoute. In this design, you should not cross-connect ExpressRoute circuits (e.g., ER1-EastUS and ER2-WestUS) to the ExpressRoute gateways in the Hub VNets (e.g., Hub-EUS or Hub-WUS). Doing so will lead to routing issues, where the Hub VNet only programs the on-premises routes learned via ExpressRoute. For instance, in the EastUS region, if the primary circuit (ER1-EastUS) goes down, Hub-EUS will receive on-premises routes from both the VPN tunnel and the remote ER2-WestUS circuit. However, it will prefer and program only the ExpressRoute-learned routes from ER2-WestUS circuit. Since ExpressRoute gateways do not support route transitivity between circuits, AVS connected via AVS-ER will not receive the on-premises prefixes, resulting in routing failures. Note: In vWAN topology, to ensure optimal route convergence when failing back to ExpressRoute, you should prepend the prefixes advertised from on-premises over the VPN. Without route prepending, VNets may continue to use the VPN as the primary path to on-premises. If prepend is not an option, you can trigger the failover manually by bouncing the VPN tunnel. Solution Insights Cost-effective and straightforward to deploy. Increased Latency: The VPN tunnel over the internet adds latency due to encryption overhead. Bandwidth Considerations: Multiple VPN tunnels might be needed to achieve bandwidth comparable to a high-capacity ExpressRoute circuit (e.g., over 1G). For details on VPN gateway SKU and tunnel throughput, refer to this link. As you can't cross connect ExpressRoute circuits, VNets will utilize the VPN for failover instead of leveraging remote region ExpressRoute circuit. Solution5: Network Redundancy-Multiple On-Premises (split-prefix) In many scenarios, customers advertise the same prefix from multiple on-premises locations to Azure. However, if the customer can split prefixes across different on-premises sites, it simplifies the implementation of failover strategy using existing ExpressRoute circuits. In this design, each on-premises advertises region-specific prefixes (e.g., 10.10.0.0/16 for EastUS and 10.70.0.0/16 for WestUS), along with a common supernet (e.g., 10.0.0.0/8). Under normal conditions, AVS and VNets in each region use longest prefix match to route traffic efficiently to the appropriate on-premises location. For instance, if ER1-EastUS becomes unavailable, AVS and VNets in EastUS will automatically fail over to ER2-WestUS, routing traffic via the supernet prefix to maintain connectivity. Solution Insights Cost-effective: no additional deployment, using existing ExpressRoute circuits. Advertising specific prefixes over each region might need additional planning. Ideal for mission-critical applications, providing predictable throughput and bandwidth for backup. Solution6: Prioritize Network Redundancy for One Region Over Another If you're operating under budget constraints and can prioritize one region (such as hosting critical workloads in a single location) and want to continue using your existing ExpressRoute setup, this solution could be an ideal fit. In this design, assume AVS in EastUS (AVS-EUS) hosts the critical workloads. To ensure high availability, AVS-ER1 is configured with Global Reach connections to both the local ExpressRoute circuit (ER1-EastUS) and the remote circuit (ER2-WestUS). Make sure to prepend the on-premises prefixes advertised to ER2-WestUS using public ASN to ensure optimal routing (no ECMP) from AVS-EUS over both circuits (ER1-EastUS and ER2-WestUS). On the other hand, AVS in WestUS (AVS-WUS) is connected via Global Reach only to its local region ExpressRoute circuit (ER2-WestUS). If that circuit becomes unavailable, you can establish an on-demand Global Reach connection to ER1-EastUS, either manually or through automation (e.g., a triggered script). This approach introduces temporary downtime until the Global Reach link is established. You might be thinking, why not set up Global Reach between the AVS-WUS circuit and remote region circuits (like connecting AVS-ER2 to ER1-EastUS), just like we did for AVS-EUS? Because it would lead to suboptimal routing. Due to AS path prepending on ER2-WestUS, if both ER1-EastUS and ER2-WestUS are linked to AVS-ER2, traffic would favor the remote ER1-EastUS circuit since it presents a shorter AS path. As a result, traffic would bypass the local ER2-WestUS circuit, causing inefficient routing. That is why for AVS-WUS, it's better to use on-demand Global Reach to ER1-EastUS as a backup path, enabled manually or via automation, only when ER2-WestUS becomes unavailable. Note: VNets will failover via local AVS circuit. E.g., HUB-EUS will route to on-prem through AVS-ER1 and ER2-WestUS via Global Reach Secondary (purple line). Solution Insights Cost-effective Workloads hosted in AVS within the non-critical region will experience downtime if the local region ExpressRoute circuit becomes unavailable, until the on-demand Global Reach connection is established. Conclusion Each solution has its own advantages and considerations, such as cost-effectiveness, ease of implementation, and increased resiliency. By carefully planning and implementing these solutions, organizations can ensure operational continuity and optimal traffic routing in multi-region deployments.Combining firewall protection and SD-WAN connectivity in Azure virtual WAN
Virtual WAN (vWAN) introduces new security and connectivity features in Azure, including the ability to operate managed third-party firewalls and SD-WAN virtual appliances, integrated natively within a virtual WAN hub (vhub). This article will discuss updated network designs resulting from these integrations and examine how to combine firewall protection and SD-WAN connectivity when using vWAN. The objective is not to delve into the specifics of the security or SD-WAN connectivity solutions, but to provide an overview of the possibilities. Firewall protection in vWAN In a vWAN environment, the firewall solution is deployed either automatically inside the vhub (Routing Intent) or manually in a transit VNet (VM-series deployment). Routing Intent (managed firewall) Routing Intent refers to the concept of implementing a managed firewall solution within the vhub for internet protection or private traffic protection (VNet-to-VNet, Branch-to-VNet, Branch-to-Branch), or both. The firewall could be either an Azure Firewall or a third-party firewall, deployed within the vhub as Network Virtual Appliances or a SaaS solution. A vhub containing a managed firewall is called a secured hub. For an updated list of Routing Intent supported third-party solutions please refer to the following links: managed NVAs SaaS solution Transit VNet (unmanaged firewall) Another way to provide inspection in vWAN is to manually deploy the firewall solution in a spoke of the vhub and to cascade the actual spokes behind that transit firewall VNet (aka indirect spoke model or tiered-VNet design). In this discussion, the primary reasons for choosing unmanaged deployments are: either the firewall solution lacks an integrated vWAN offer, or it has an integrated offer but falls short in horizontal scalability or specific features compared to the VM-based version. For a detailed analysis on the pros and cons of each design please refer to this article. SD-WAN connectivity in vWAN Similar to the firewall deployment options, there are two main methods for extending an SDWAN overlay into an Azure vWAN environment: a managed deployment within the vhub, or a standard VM-series deployment in a spoke of the vhub. More options here. SD-WAN in vWAN deployment (managed) In this scenario, a pair of virtual SD-WAN appliances are automatically deployed and integrated in the vhub using dynamic routing (BGP) with the vhub router. Deployment and management processes are streamlined as these appliances are seamlessly provisioned in Azure and set up for a simple import into the partner portal (SD-WAN orchestrator). For an updated list of supported SDWAN partners please refer to this link. For more information on SD-WAN in vWAN deployments please refer to this article. VM-series deployment (unmanaged) This solution requires manual deployment of the virtual SD-WAN appliances in a spoke of the vhub. The underlying VMs and the horizontal scaling are managed by the customer. Dynamic route exchange with the vWAN environment is achieved leveraging BGP peering with the vhub. Alternatively, and depending on the complexity of your addressing plan, static routing may also be possible. Firewall protection and SD-WAN in vWAN THE CHALLENGE! Currently, it is only possible to chain managed third-party SD-WAN connectivity with Azure Firewall in the same vhub, or to use dual-role SD-WAN connectivity and security appliances. Routing Intent provided by third-party firewalls combined with another managed SD-WAN solution inside the same vhub is not yet supported. But how can firewall protection and SD-WAN connectivity be integrated together within vWAN? Solution 1: Routing Intent with Azure Firewall and managed SD-WAN (same vhub) Firewall solution: managed. SD-WAN solution: managed. This design is only compatible with Routing Intent using Azure Firewall, as it is the sole firewall solution that can be combined with a managed SD-WAN in vWAN deployment in that same vhub. With the private traffic protection policy enabled in Routing Intent, all East-West flows (VNet-to-VNet, Branch-to-VNet, Branch-to-Branch) are inspected. Solution 2: Routing Intent with a third-party firewall and managed SD-WAN (2 vhubs) Firewall solution: managed. SD-WAN solution: managed. To have both a third-party firewall managed solution in vWAN and an SD-WAN managed solution in vWAN in the same region, the only option is to have a vhub dedicated to the security solution deployment and another vhub dedicated to the SD-WAN solution deployment. In each region, spoke VNets are connected to the secured vhub, while SD-WAN branches are connected to the vhub containing the SD-WAN deployment. In this design, Routing Intent private traffic protection provides VNet-to-VNet and Branch-to-VNet inspection. However, Branch-to-Branch traffic will not be inspected. Solution 3: Routing Intent and SD-WAN spoke VNet (same vhub) Firewall solution: managed. SD-WAN solution: unmanaged. This design is compatible with any Routing Intent supported firewall solution (Azure Firewall or third-party) and with any SD-WAN solution. With Routing Intent private traffic protection enabled, all East-West flows (VNet-to-VNet, Branch-to-VNet, Branch-to-Branch) are inspected. Solution 4: Transit firewall VNet and managed SDWAN (same vhub) Firewall solution: unmanaged. SD-WAN solution: managed. This design utilizes the indirect spoke model, enabling the deployment of managed SD-WAN in vWAN appliances. This design provides VNet-to-VNet and Branch-to-VNet inspection. But because the firewall solution is not hosted in the hub, Branch-to-Branch traffic will not be inspected. Solution 5 - Transit firewall VNet and SD-WAN spoke VNet (same vhub) Firewall solution: unmanaged. SD-WAN solution: unmanaged. This design integrates both the security and the SD-WAN connectivity as unmanaged solutions, placing the responsibility for deploying and managing the firewall and the SD-WAN hub on the customer. Just like in solution #4, only VNet-to-VNet and Branch-to-VNet traffic is inspected. Conclusion Although it is currently not possible to combine a managed third-party firewall solution with a managed SDWAN deployment within the same vhub, numerous design options are still available to meet various needs, whether managed or unmanaged approaches are preferred.Inspection Patterns in Hub-and-Spoke and vWAN Architectures
By shruthi_nair Mays_Algebary Inspection plays a vital role in network architecture, and each customer may have unique inspection requirements. This article explores common inspection scenarios in both Hub-and-Spoke and Virtual WAN (vWAN) topologies. We’ll walk through design approaches assuming a setup with two Hubs or Virtual Hubs (VHubs) connected to on-premises environments via ExpressRoute. The specific regions of the Hubs or VHubs are not critical, as the same design principles can be applied across regions. Scenario1: Hub-and-Spoke Inspection Patterns In the Hub-and-Spoke scenarios, the baseline architecture assumes the presence of two Hub VNets. Each Hub VNet is peered with its local spoke VNets as well as with the other Hub VNet (Hub2-VNet). Additionally, both Hub VNets are connected to both local and remote ExpressRoute circuits to ensure redundancy. Note: In Hub-and-Spoke scenarios, connectivity between virtual networks over ExpressRoute circuits across Hubs is intentionally disabled. This ensures that inter-Hub traffic uses VNet peering, which provides a more optimized path, rather than traversing the ExpressRoute circuit. In Scenario 1, we present two implementation approaches: a traditional method and an alternative leveraging Azure Virtual Network Manager (AVNM). Option1: Full Inspection A widely adopted design pattern is to inspect all traffic, both east-west and north-south, to meet security and compliance requirements. This can be implemented using a traditional Hub-and-Spoke topology with VNet Peering and User-Defined Routes (UDRs), or by leveraging AVNM with Connectivity Configurations and centralized UDR management. In the traditional approach: VNet Peering is used to connect each spoke to its local Hub, and to establish connectivity between the two Hubs. UDRs direct traffic to the firewall as the next hop, ensuring inspection before reaching its destination. These UDRs are applied at the Spoke VNets, the Gateway Subnet, and the Firewall Subnet (especially for inter-region scenarios), as shown in the below diagram. As your environment grows, managing individual UDRs and VNet Peerings manually can become complex. To simplify deployment and ongoing management at scale, you can use AVNM. With AVNM: Use the Hub-and-Spoke connectivity configuration to manage routing within a single Hub. Use the Mesh connectivity configuration to establish Inter-Hub connectivity between the two Hubs. AVNM also enables centralized creation, assignment, and management of UDRs, streamlining network configuration at scale. Connectivity Inspection Table Connectivity Scenario Inspected On-premises ↔ Azure ✅ Spoke ↔ Spoke ✅ Spoke ↔ Internet ✅ Option2: Selective Inspection Between Azure VNets In some scenarios, full traffic inspection is not required or desirable. This may be due to network segmentation based on trust zones, for example, traffic between trusted VNets may not require inspection. Other reasons include high-volume data replication, latency-sensitive applications, or the need to reduce inspection overhead and cost. In this design, VNets are grouped into trusted and untrusted zones. Trusted VNets can exist within the same Hub or across different Hubs. To bypass inspection between trusted VNets, you can connect them directly using VNet Peering or AVNM Mesh connectivity topology. It’s important to note that UDRs are still used and configured as described in the full inspection model (Option 1). However, when trusted VNets are directly connected, system routes (created by VNet Peering or Mesh connectivity) take precedence over custom UDRs. As a result, traffic between trusted VNets bypasses the firewall and flows directly. In contrast, traffic to or from untrusted zones follows the UDRs, ensuring it is routed through the firewall for inspection. t Connectivity Inspection Table Connectivity Scenario Inspected On-premises ↔ Azure ✅ Spoke ↔ Internet ✅ Spoke ↔ Spoke (Same Zones) ❌ Spoke ↔ Spoke (Across Zones) ✅ Option3: No Inspection to On-premises In cases where a firewall at the on-premises or colocation site already inspects traffic from Azure, customers typically aim to avoid double inspection. To support this in the above design, traffic destined for on-premises is not routed through the firewall deployed in Azure. For the UDRs applied to the spoke VNets, ensure that "Propagate Gateway Routes" is set to true, allowing traffic to follow the ExpressRoute path directly without additional inspection in Azure. Connectivity Inspection Table Connectivity Scenario Inspected On-premises ↔ Azure ❌ Spoke ↔ Spoke ✅ Spoke ↔ Internet ✅ Option4: Internet Inspection Only While not generally recommended, some customers choose to inspect only internet-bound traffic and allow private traffic to flow without inspection. In such cases, spoke VNets can be directly connected using VNet Peering or AVNM Mesh connectivity. To ensure on-premises traffic avoids inspection, set "Propagate Gateway Routes" to true in the UDRs applied to spoke VNets. This allows traffic to follow the ExpressRoute path directly without being inspected in Azure. Scenario2: vWAN Inspection Options Now we will explore inspection options using a vWAN topology. Across all scenarios, the base architecture assumes two Virtual Hubs (VHubs), each connected to its respective local spoke VNets. vWAN provides default connectivity between the two VHubs, and each VHub is also connected to both local and remote ExpressRoute circuits for redundancy. It's important to note that this discussion focuses on inspection in vWAN using Routing Intent. As a result, bypassing inspection for traffic to on-premises is not supported in this model. Option1: Full Inspection As noted earlier, inspecting all traffic, both east-west and north-south, is a common practice to fulfill compliance and security needs. In this design, enabling Routing Intent provides the capability to inspect both, private and internet-bound traffic. Unlike the Hub-and-Spoke topology, this approach does not require any UDR configuration. Connectivity Inspection Table Connectivity Scenario Inspected On-premises ↔ Azure ✅ Spoke ↔ Spoke ✅ Spoke ↔ Internet ✅ Option2: Using Different Firewall Flavors for Traffic Inspection Using different firewall flavors inside VHub for traffic inspection Some customers require specific firewalls for different traffic flows, for example, using Azure Firewall for East-West traffic while relying on a third-party firewall for North-South inspection. In vWAN, it’s possible to deploy both Azure Firewall and a third-party network virtual appliance (NVA) within the same VHub. However, as of this writing, deploying two different third-party NVAs in the same VHub is not supported. This behavior may change in the future, so it’s recommended to monitor the known limitations section for updates. With this design, you can easily control which firewall handles East-West versus North-South traffic using Routing Intent, eliminating the need for UDRs. Using different firewall flavors inside VHub for traffic inspection Deploying third-party firewalls in spoke VNets when VHub limitations apply If the third-party firewall you want to use is not supported within the VHub, or if the managed firewall available in the VHub lacks certain required features compared to the version deployable in a regular VNet, you can deploy the third-party firewall in a spoke VNet instead, while using Azure Firewall in the VHub. In this design, the third-party firewall (deployed in a spoke VNet) handles internet-bound traffic, and Azure Firewall (in the VHub) inspects East-West traffic. This setup is achieved by peering the third-party firewall VNet to the VHub, as well as directly peering it with the spoke VNets. These spoke VNets are also connected to the VHub, as illustrated in the diagram below. UDRs are required in the spoke VNets to forward internet-bound traffic to the third-party firewall VNet. East-West traffic routing, however, is handled using the Routing Intent feature, directing traffic through Azure Firewall without the need for UDRs. Deploying third-party firewalls in spoke VNets when VHub limitations apply Note: Although it is not required to connect the third-party firewall VNet to the VHub for traffic flow, doing so is recommended for ease of management and on-premises reachability. Connectivity Inspection Table Connectivity Scenario Inspected On-premises ↔ Azure ✅ Inspected using Azure Firewall Spoke ↔ Spoke ✅ Inspected using Azure Firewall Spoke ↔ Internet ✅ Inspected using Third Party Firewall Option3: Selective Inspection Between Azure VNets Similar to the Hub-and-Spoke topology, there are scenarios where full traffic inspection is not ideal. This may be due to Azure VNets being segmented into trusted and untrusted zones, where inspection is unnecessary between trusted VNets. Other reasons include large data replication between specific VNets or latency-sensitive applications that require minimizing inspection delays and associated costs. In this design, trusted and untrusted VNets can reside within the same VHub or across different VHubs. Routing Intent remains enabled to inspect traffic between trusted and untrusted VNets, as well as internet-bound traffic. To bypass inspection between trusted VNets, you can connect them directly using VNet Peering or AVNM Mesh connectivity. Unlike the Hub-and-Spoke model, this design does not require UDR configuration. Because trusted VNets are directly connected, system routes from VNet peering take precedence over routes learned through the VHub. Traffic destined for untrusted zones will continue to follow the Routing Intent and be inspected accordingly. Connectivity Inspection Table Connectivity Scenario Inspected On-premises ↔ Azure ✅ Spoke ↔ Internet ✅ Spoke ↔ Spoke (Same Zones) ❌ Spoke ↔ Spoke (Across Zones) ✅ Option4: Internet Inspection Only While not generally recommended, some customers choose to inspect only internet-bound traffic and bypass inspection of private traffic. In this design, you only enable the Internet Inspection option within Routing Intent, so private traffic bypasses the firewall entirely. The VHub manages both intra-and inter-VHub routing directly. Internet Inspection Only Connectivity Inspection Table Connectivity Scenario Inspected On-premises ↔ Azure ❌ Spoke ↔ Internet ✅ Spoke ↔ Spoke ❌Network Redundancy from On-Premises to Azure VMware and VNETs in a Single-Region Design
By shruthi_nair Mays_Algebary Establishing redundant network connectivity is vital to ensuring the availability, reliability, and performance of workloads operating in hybrid and cloud environments. Proper planning and implementation of network redundancy are key to achieving high availability and sustaining operational continuity. This guide presents common architectural patterns for building redundant connectivity between on-premises datacenters, Azure Virtual Networks (VNets), and Azure VMware Solution (AVS) within a single-region deployment. AVS allows organizations to run VMware-based workloads directly on Azure infrastructure, offering a streamlined path for migrating existing VMware environments to the cloud without the need for significant re-architecture or modification. Connectivity Between AVS, On-Premises, and Virtual Networks The diagram below illustrates a common network design pattern using either a Hub-and-Spoke or Virtual WAN (vWAN) topology, deployed within a single Azure region. ExpressRoute is used to establish connectivity between on-premises environments and VNets. The same ExpressRoute circuit is extended to connect AVS to the on-premises infrastructure through ExpressRoute Global Reach. Consideration: This design presents a single point of failure. If the ExpressRoute circuit (ER1-EastUS) experiences an outage, connectivity between the on-premises environment, VNets, and AVS will be disrupted. Let’s examine some solutions to establish redundant connectivity in case the ER1-EastUS experiences an outage. Solution1: Network Redundancy via VPN In this solution, one or more VPN tunnels are deployed as a backup to ExpressRoute. If ExpressRoute becomes unavailable, the VPN provides an alternative connectivity path from the on-premises environment to VNets and AVS. In a Hub-and-Spoke topology, a backup path to and from AVS can be established by deploying Azure Route Server (ARS) in the hub VNet. ARS enables seamless transit routing between ExpressRoute and the VPN gateway. In vWAN topology, ARS is not required. The vHub's built-in routing service automatically provides transitive routing between the VPN gateway and ExpressRoute. Note: In vWAN topology, to ensure optimal route convergence when failing back to ExpressRoute, you should prepend the prefixes advertised from on-premises over the VPN. Without route prepending, VNets may continue to use the VPN as the primary path to on-premises. If prepend is not an option, you can trigger the failover manually by bouncing the VPN tunnel. Solution Insights: Cost-effective and straightforward to deploy. Latency: The VPN tunnel introduces additional latency due to its reliance on the public internet and the overhead associated with encryption. Bandwidth Considerations: Multiple VPN tunnels might be needed to achieve bandwidth comparable to a high-capacity ExpressRoute circuit (e.g., over 10G). For details on VPN gateway SKU and tunnel throughput, refer to this link. Solution2: Network Redundancy via SD-WAN In this solution, SDWAN tunnels are deployed as a backup to ExpressRoute. If ExpressRoute becomes unavailable, SDWAN provides an alternative connectivity path from the on-premises environment to VNets and AVS. In a Hub-and-Spoke topology, a backup path to and from AVS can be established by deploying ARS in the hub VNet. ARS enables seamless transit routing between ExpressRoute and the SDWAN appliance. In vWAN topology, ARS is not required. The vHub's built-in routing service automatically provides transitive routing between the SDWAN and ExpressRoute. Note: In vWAN topology, to ensure optimal convergence from the VNets when failing back to ExpressRoute, prepend the prefixes advertised from on-premises over the SDWAN to make sure it's longer that ExpressRoute learned routes. If you don't prepend, VNets will continue to use SDWAN path to on-prem as primary path. In this design using Azure vWAN, the SD-WAN can be deployed either within the vHub or in a spoke VNet connected to the vHub the same principle applies in both cases. Solution Insights: If you have an existing SDWANs no additional deployment is needed. Bandwidth Considerations: Vendor specific. Management consideration: Third party dependency and need to manage the HA deployment, except for SD-WAN SaaS solution. Solution3: Network Redundancy via ExpressRoute in Different Peering Locations Deploy an additional ExpressRoute circuit at a different peering location and enable Global Reach between ER2-peeringlocation2 and AVS-ER. To use this circuit as a backup path, prepend the on-premises prefixes on the second circuit; otherwise, AVS or VNet will perform Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) routing across both circuits to on-prem. Note: Use public ASN to prepend the on-premises prefix as AVS-ER will strip the private ASN toward AVS. Refer to this link for more details. Solution Insights: Ideal for mission-critical applications, providing predictable throughput and bandwidth for backup. Could be cost prohibitive depending on the bandwidth of the second circuit. Solution4: Network Redundancy via Metro ExpressRoute Metro ExpressRoute is the new ExpressRoute configuration. This configuration allows you to benefit from a dual-homed setup that facilitates diverse connections to two distinct ExpressRoute peering locations within a city. This configuration offers enhanced resiliency if one peering location experiences an outage. Solution Insights Higher Resiliency: Provides increased reliability with a single circuit. Limited regional availability: Availability is restricted to specific regions within the metro area. Cost-effective Conclusion: The choice of failover connectivity should be guided by the specific latency and bandwidth requirements of your workloads. Ultimately, achieving high availability and ensuring continuous operations depend on careful planning and effective implementation of network redundancy strategies.
Accelerate designing, troubleshooting & securing your network with Gen-AI powered tools, now GA.
We are thrilled to announce the general availability of Azure Networking skills in Copilot, an extension of Copilot in Azure and Security Copilot designed to enhance cloud networking experience. Azure Networking Copilot is set to transform how organizations design, operate, and optimize their Azure Network by providing contextualized responses tailored to networking-specific scenarios and using your network topology.A Guide to Azure Data Transfer Pricing
Understanding Azure networking charges is essential for businesses aiming to manage their budgets effectively. Given the complexity of Azure networking pricing, which involves various influencing factors, the goal here is to bring a clearer understanding of the associated data transfer costs by breaking down the pricing models into the following use cases: VM to VM VM to Private Endpoint VM to Internal Standard Load Balancer (ILB) VM to Internet Hybrid connectivity Please note this is a first version, with a second version to follow that will include additional scenarios. Disclaimer: Pricing may change over time, check the public Azure pricing calculator for up-to-date pricing information. Actual pricing may vary depending on agreements, purchase dates, and currency exchange rates. Sign in to the Azure pricing calculator to see pricing based on your current program/offer with Microsoft. 1. VM to VM 1.1. VM to VM, same VNet Data transfer within the same virtual network (VNet) is free of charge. This means that traffic between VMs within the same VNet will not incur any additional costs. Doc. Data transfer across Availability Zones (AZ) is free. Doc. 1.2. VM to VM, across VNet peering Azure VNet peering enables seamless connectivity between two virtual networks, allowing resources in different VNets to communicate with each other as if they were within the same network. When data is transferred between VNets, charges apply for both ingress and egress data. Doc: VM to VM, across VNet peering, same region VM to VM, across Global VNet peering Azure regions are grouped into 3 Zones (distinct from Avaialbility Zones within a specific Azure region). The pricing for Global VNet Peering is based on that geographic structure. Data transfer between VNets in different zones incurs outbound and inbound data transfer rates for the respective zones. When data is transferred from a VNet in Zone 1 to a VNet in Zone 2, outbound data transfer rates for Zone 1 and inbound data transfer rates for Zone 2 will be applicable. Doc. 1.3. VM to VM, through Network Virtual Appliance (NVA) Data transfer through an NVA involves charges for both ingress and egress data, depending on the volume of data processed. When an NVA is in the path, such as for spoke VNet to spoke VNet connectivity via an NVA (firewall...) in the hub VNet, it incurs VM to VM pricing twice. The table above reflects only data transfer charges and does not include NVA/Azure Firewall processing costs. 2. VM to Private Endpoint (PE) Private Endpoint pricing includes charges for the provisioned resource and data transfer costs based on traffic direction. For instance, writing to a Storage Account through a Private Endpoint incurs outbound data charges, while reading incurs inbound data charges. Doc: 2.1. VM to PE, same VNet Since data transfer within a VNet is free, charges are only applied for data processing through the Private Endpoint. Cross-region traffic will incur additional costs if the Storage Account and the Private Endpoint are located in different regions. 2.2. VM to PE, across VNet peering Accessing Private Endpoints from a peered network incurs only Private Link Premium charges, with no peering fees. Doc. VM to PE, across VNet peering, same region VM to PE, across VNet peering, PE region != SA region 2.3. VM to PE, through NVA When an NVA is in the path, such as for spoke VNet to spoke VNet connectivity via a firewall in the hub VNet, it incurs VM to VM charges between the VM and the NVA. However, as per the PE pricing model, there are no charges between the NVA and the PE. The table above reflects only data transfer charges and does not include NVA/Azure Firewall processing costs. 3. VM to Internal Load Balancer (ILB) Azure Standard Load Balancer pricing is based on the number of load balancing rules as well as the volume of data processed. Doc: 3.1. VM to ILB, same VNet Data transfer within the same virtual network (VNet) is free. However, the data processed by the ILB is charged based on its volume and on the number load balancing rules implemented. Only the inbound traffic is processed by the ILB (and charged), the return traffic goes direct from the backend to the source VM (free of charge). 3.2. VM to ILB, across VNet peering In addition to the Load Balancer costs, data transfer charges between VNets apply for both ingress and egress. 3.3. VM to ILB, through NVA When an NVA is in the path, such as for spoke VNet to spoke VNet connectivity via a firewall in the hub VNet, it incurs VM to VM charges between the VM and the NVA and VM to ILB charges between the NVA and the ILB/backend resource. The table above reflects only data transfer charges and does not include NVA/Azure Firewall processing costs. 4. VM to internet 4.1. Data transfer and inter-region pricing model Bandwidth refers to data moving in and out of Azure data centers, as well as data moving between Azure data centers; other transfers are explicitly covered by the Content Delivery Network, ExpressRoute pricing, or Peering. Doc: 4.2. Routing Preference in Azure and internet egress pricing model When creating a public IP in Azure, Azure Routing Preference allows you to choose how your traffic routes between Azure and the Internet. You can select either the Microsoft Global Network or the public internet for routing your traffic. Doc: See how this choice can impact the performance and reliability of network traffic: By selecting a Routing Preference set to Microsoft network, ingress traffic enters the Microsoft network closest to the user, and egress traffic exits the network closest to the user, minimizing travel on the public internet (“Cold Potato” routing). On the contrary, setting the Routing Preference to internet, ingress traffic enters the Microsoft network closest to the hosted service region. Transit ISP networks are used to route traffic, travel on the Microsoft Global Network is minimized (“Hot Potato” routing). Bandwidth pricing for internet egress, Doc: 4.3. VM to internet, direct Data transferred out of Azure to the internet incurs charges, while data transferred into Azure is free of charge. Doc. It is important to note that default outbound access for VMs in Azure will be retired on September 30 2025, migration to an explicit outbound internet connectivity method is recommended. Doc. 4.4. VM to internet, with a public IP Here a standard public IP is explicitly associated to a VM NIC, that incurs additional costs. Like in the previous scenario, data transferred out of Azure to the internet incurs charges, while data transferred into Azure is free of charge. Doc. 4.5. VM to internet, with NAT Gateway In addition to the previous costs, data transfer through a NAT Gateway involves charges for both the data processed and the NAT Gateway itself, Doc: 5. Hybrid connectivity Hybrid connectivity involves connecting on-premises networks to Azure VNets. The pricing model includes charges for data transfer between the on-premises network and Azure, as well as any additional costs for using Network Virtual Appliances (NVAs) or Azure Firewalls in the hub VNet. 5.1. H&S Hybrid connectivity without firewall inspection in the hub For an inbound flow, from the ExpressRoute Gateway to a spoke VNet, VNet peering charges are applied once on the spoke inbound. There are no charges on the hub outbound. For an outbound flow, from a spoke VNet to an ER branch, VNet peering charges are applied once, outbound of the spoke only. There are no charges on the hub inbound. Doc. The table above does not include ExpressRoute connectivity related costs. 5.2. H&S Hybrid connectivity with firewall inspection in the hub Since traffic transits and is inspected via a firewall in the hub VNet (Azure Firewall or 3P firewall NVA), the previous concepts do not apply. “Standard” inter-VNet VM-to-VM charges apply between the FW and the destination VM : inbound and outbound on both directions. Once outbound from the source VNet (Hub or Spoke), once inbound on the destination VNet (Spoke or Hub). The table above reflects only data transfer charges within Azure and does not include NVA/Azure Firewall processing costs nor the costs related to ExpressRoute connectivity. 5.3. H&S Hybrid connectivity via a 3rd party connectivity NVA (SDWAN or IPSec) Standard inter-VNet VM-to-VM charges apply between the NVA and the destination VM: inbound and outbound on both directions, both in the Hub VNet and in the Spoke VNet. 5.4. vWAN scenarios VNet peering is charged only from the point of view of the spoke – see examples and vWAN pricing components. Next steps with cost management To optimize cost management, Azure offers tools for monitoring and analyzing network charges. Azure Cost Management and Billing allows you to track and allocate costs across various services and resources, ensuring transparency and control over your expenses. By leveraging these tools, businesses can gain a deeper understanding of their network costs and make informed decisions to optimize their Azure spending.
