Announcing Azure DNS security policy with Threat Intelligence feed general availability
Azure DNS security policy with Threat Intelligence feed allows early detection and prevention of security incidents on customer Virtual Networks where known malicious domains sourced by Microsoft’s Security Response Center (MSRC) can be blocked from name resolution. Azure DNS security policy with Threat Intelligence feed is being announced to all customers and will have regional availability in all public regions.Azure Virtual Network Manager + Azure Virtual WAN
Azure continues to expand its networking capabilities, with Azure Virtual Network Manager and Azure Virtual WAN (vWAN) standing out as two of the most transformative services. When deployed together, they offer the best of both worlds: the operational simplicity of a managed hub architecture combined with the ability for spoke VNets to communicate directly, avoiding additional hub hops and minimizing latency Revisiting the classic hub-and-spoke pattern Element Traditional hub-and-spoke role Hub VNet Centralized network that hosts shared services including firewalls (e.g., Azure Firewall, NVAs), VPN/ExpressRoute gateways, DNS servers, domain controllers, and central route tables for traffic management. Acts as the connectivity and security anchor for all spoke networks. Spoke VNets Host individual application workloads and peer directly to the hub VNet. Traffic flows through the hub for north-south connectivity (to/from on-premises or internet) and cross-spoke communication (east-west traffic between spokes). Benefits • Single enforcement point for security policies and network controls • No duplication of shared services across environments • Simplified routing logic and traffic flow management • Clear network segmentation and isolation between workloads • Cost optimization through centralized resources However, this architecture comes with a trade-off: every spoke-to-spoke packet must route through the hub, introducing additional network hops, increased latency, and potential throughput constraints. How Virtual WAN modernizes that design Virtual WAN replaces a do-it-yourself hub VNet with a fully managed hub service: Managed hubs – Azure owns and operates the hub infrastructure. Automatic route propagation – routes learned once are usable everywhere. Integrated add-ons – Firewalls, VPN, and ExpressRoute ports are first-class citizens. By default, Virtual WAN enables any-to-any routing between spokes. Traffic transits the hub fabric automatically—no configuration required. Why direct spoke mesh? Certain patterns require single-hop connectivity Micro-service meshes that sit in different spokes and exchange chatty RPC calls. Database replication / backups where throughput counts, and hub bandwidth is precious. Dev / Test / Prod spokes that need to sync artifacts quickly yet stay isolated from hub services. Segmentation mandates where a workload must bypass hub inspection for compliance yet still talk to a partner VNet. Benefits Lower latency – the hub detour disappears. Better bandwidth – no hub congestion or firewall throughput cap. Higher resilience – spoke pairs can keep talking even if the hub is under maintenance. The peering explosion problem With pure VNet peering, the math escalates fast: For n spokes you need n × (n-1)/2 links. Ten spokes? 45 peerings. Add four more? Now 91. Each extra peering forces you to: Touch multiple route tables. Update NSG rules to cover the new paths. Repeat every time you add or retire a spoke. Troubleshoot an ever-growing spider web. Where Azure Virtual Network Manager Steps In? Azure Virtual Network Manager introduces Network Groups plus a Mesh connectivity policy: Azure Virtual Network Manager Concept What it gives you Network group A logical container that groups multiple VNets together, allowing you to apply configurations and policies to all members simultaneously Mesh connectivity Automated peering between all VNets in the group, ensuring every member can communicate directly with every other member without manual configuration Declarative config Intent-based approach where you define the desired network state, and Azure Virtual Network Manager handles the implementation and ongoing maintenance Dynamic updates Automatic topology management—when VNets are added to or removed from a group, Azure Virtual Network Manager reconfigures all necessary connections without manual intervention Operational complexity collapses from O(n²) to O(1)—you manage a group, not 100+ individual peerings. A complementary model: Azure Virtual Network Manager mesh inside vWAN Since Azure Virtual Network Manager works on any Azure VNet—including the VNets you already attach to a vWAN hub—you can apply mesh policies on top of your existing managed hub architecture: Spoke VNets join a vWAN hub for branch connectivity, centralized firewalling, or multi-region reach. The same spokes are added to an Azure Virtual Network Manager Network Group with a mesh policy. Azure Virtual Network Manager builds direct peering links between the spokes, while vWAN continues to advertise and learn routes. Result: All VNets still benefit from vWAN’s global routing and on-premises integration. Latency-critical east-west flows now travel the shortest path—one hop—as if the VNets were traditionally peered. Rather than choosing one over the other, organizations can leverage both vWAN and Azure Virtual Network Manager together, as the combination enhances the strengths of each service. Performance illustration Spoke-to-Spoke Communication with Virtual WAN without Azure Virtual Network Manager mesh: Spoke-to-Spoke Communication with Virtual WAN with Azure Virtual Network Manager mesh: Observability & protection NSG flow logs – granular packet logs on every peered VNet. Azure Virtual Network Manager admin rules – org-wide guardrails that trump local NSGs. Azure Monitor + SIEM – route flow logs to Log Analytics, Sentinel, or third-party SIEM for threat detection. Layered design – hub firewalls inspect north-south traffic; NSGs plus admin rules secure east-west flows. Putting it all together Virtual WAN offers fully managed global connectivity, simplifying the integration of branch offices and on-premises infrastructure into your Azure environment. Azure Virtual Network Manager mesh establishes direct communication paths between spoke VNets, making it ideal for workloads requiring high throughput or minimal latency in east-west traffic patterns. When combined, these services provide architects with granular control over traffic routing. Each flow can be directed through hub services when needed or routed directly between spokes for optimal performance—all without re-architecting your network or creating additional management complexity. By pairing Azure Virtual Network Manager’s group-based mesh with VWAN’s managed hubs, you get the best of both worlds: worldwide reach, centralized security, and single-hop performance where it counts.
Deploying Third-Party Firewalls in Azure Landing Zones: Design, Configuration, and Best Practices
As enterprises adopt Microsoft Azure for large-scale workloads, securing network traffic becomes a critical part of the platform foundation. Azure’s Well-Architected Framework provides the blueprint for enterprise-scale Landing Zone design and deployments, and while Azure Firewall is a built-in PaaS option, some organizations prefer third-party firewall appliances for familiarity, feature depth, and vendor alignment. This blog explains the basic design patterns, key configurations, and best practices when deploying third-party firewalls (Palo Alto, Fortinet, Check Point, etc.) as part of an Azure Landing Zone. 1. Landing Zone Architecture and Firewall Role The Azure Landing Zone is Microsoft’s recommended enterprise-scale architecture for adopting cloud at scale. It provides a standardized, modular design that organizations can use to deploy and govern workloads consistently across subscriptions and regions. At its core, the Landing Zone follows a hub-and-spoke topology: Hub (Connectivity Subscription): Central place for shared services like DNS, private endpoints, VPN/ExpressRoute gateways, Azure Firewall (or third-party firewall appliances), Bastion, and monitoring agents. Provides consistent security controls and connectivity for all workloads. Firewalls are deployed here to act as the traffic inspection and enforcement point. Spokes (Workload Subscriptions): Application workloads (e.g., SAP, web apps, data platforms) are placed in spoke VNets. Additional specialized spokes may exist for Identity, Shared Services, Security, or Management. These are isolated for governance and compliance, but all connectivity back to other workloads or on-premises routes through the hub. Traffic Flows Through Firewalls North-South Traffic: Inbound connections from the Internet (e.g., customer access to applications). Outbound connections from Azure workloads to Internet services. Hybrid connectivity to on-premises datacenters or other clouds. Routed through the external firewall set for inspection and policy enforcement. East-West Traffic: Lateral traffic between spokes (e.g., Application VNet to Database VNet). Communication across environments like Dev → Test → Prod (if allowed). Routed through an internal firewall set to apply segmentation, zero-trust principles, and prevent lateral movement of threats. Why Firewalls Matter in the Landing Zone While Azure provides NSGs (Network Security Groups) and Route Tables for basic packet filtering and routing, these are not sufficient for advanced security scenarios. Firewalls add: Deep packet inspection (DPI) and application-level filtering. Intrusion Detection/Prevention (IDS/IPS) capabilities. Centralized policy management across multiple spokes. Segmentation of workloads to reduce blast radius of potential attacks. Consistent enforcement of enterprise security baselines across hybrid and multi-cloud. Organizations May Choose Depending on security needs, cost tolerance, and operational complexity, organizations typically adopt one of two models for third party firewalls: Two sets of firewalls One set dedicated for north-south traffic (external to Azure). Another set for east-west traffic (between VNets and spokes). Provides the highest security granularity, but comes with higher cost and management overhead. Single set of firewalls A consolidated deployment where the same firewall cluster handles both east-west and north-south traffic. Simpler and more cost-effective, but may introduce complexity in routing and policy segregation. This design choice is usually made during Landing Zone design, balancing security requirements, budget, and operational maturity. 2. Why Choose Third-Party Firewalls Over Azure Firewall? While Azure Firewall provides simplicity as a managed service, customers often choose third-party solutions due to: Advanced features – Deep packet inspection, IDS/IPS, SSL decryption, threat feeds. Vendor familiarity – Network teams trained on Palo Alto, Fortinet, or Check Point. Existing contracts – Enterprise license agreements and support channels. Hybrid alignment – Same vendor firewalls across on-premises and Azure. Azure Firewall is a fully managed PaaS service, ideal for customers who want a simple, cloud-native solution without worrying about underlying infrastructure. However, many enterprises continue to choose third-party firewall appliances (Palo Alto, Fortinet, Check Point, etc.) when implementing their Landing Zones. The decision usually depends on capabilities, familiarity, and enterprise strategy. Key Reasons to Choose Third-Party Firewalls Feature Depth and Advanced Security Third-party vendors offer advanced capabilities such as: Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) for application-aware filtering. Intrusion Detection and Prevention (IDS/IPS). SSL/TLS decryption and inspection. Advanced threat feeds, malware protection, sandboxing, and botnet detection. While Azure Firewall continues to evolve, these vendors have a longer track record in advanced threat protection. Operational Familiarity and Skills Network and security teams often have years of experience managing Palo Alto, Fortinet, or Check Point appliances on-premises. Adopting the same technology in Azure reduces the learning curve and ensures faster troubleshooting, smoother operations, and reuse of existing playbooks. Integration with Existing Security Ecosystem Many organizations already use vendor-specific management platforms (e.g., Panorama for Palo Alto, FortiManager for Fortinet, or SmartConsole for Check Point). Extending the same tools into Azure allows centralized management of policies across on-premises and cloud, ensuring consistent enforcement. Compliance and Regulatory Requirements Certain industries (finance, healthcare, government) require proven, certified firewall vendors for security compliance. Customers may already have third-party solutions validated by auditors and prefer extending those to Azure for consistency. Hybrid and Multi-Cloud Alignment Many enterprises run a hybrid model, with workloads split across on-premises, Azure, AWS, or GCP. Third-party firewalls provide a common security layer across environments, simplifying multi-cloud operations and governance. Customization and Flexibility Unlike Azure Firewall, which is a managed service with limited backend visibility, third-party firewalls give admins full control over operating systems, patching, advanced routing, and custom integrations. This flexibility can be essential when supporting complex or non-standard workloads. Licensing Leverage (BYOL) Enterprises with existing enterprise agreements or volume discounts can bring their own firewall licenses (BYOL) to Azure. This often reduces cost compared to pay-as-you-go Azure Firewall pricing. When Azure Firewall Might Still Be Enough Organizations with simple security needs (basic north-south inspection, FQDN filtering). Cloud-first teams that prefer managed services with minimal infrastructure overhead. Customers who want to avoid manual scaling and VM patching that comes with IaaS appliances. In practice, many large organizations use a hybrid approach: Azure Firewall for lightweight scenarios or specific environments, and third-party firewalls for enterprise workloads that require advanced inspection, vendor alignment, and compliance certifications. 3. Deployment Models in Azure Third-party firewalls in Azure are primarily IaaS-based appliances deployed as virtual machines (VMs). Leading vendors publish Azure Marketplace images and ARM/Bicep templates, enabling rapid, repeatable deployments across multiple environments. These firewalls allow organizations to enforce advanced network security policies, perform deep packet inspection, and integrate with Azure-native services such as Virtual Network (VNet) peering, Azure Monitor, and Azure Sentinel. Note: Some vendors now also release PaaS versions of their firewalls, offering managed firewall services with simplified operations. However, for the purposes of this blog, we will focus mainly on IaaS-based firewall deployments. Common Deployment Modes Active-Active Description: In this mode, multiple firewall VMs operate simultaneously, sharing the traffic load. An Azure Load Balancer distributes inbound and outbound traffic across all active firewall instances. Use Cases: Ideal for environments requiring high throughput, resilience, and near-zero downtime, such as enterprise data centers, multi-region deployments, or mission-critical applications. Considerations: Requires careful route and policy synchronization between firewall instances to ensure consistent traffic handling. Typically involves BGP or user-defined routes (UDRs) for optimal traffic steering. Scaling is easier: additional firewall VMs can be added behind the load balancer to handle traffic spikes. Active-Passive Description: One firewall VM handles all traffic (active), while the secondary VM (passive) stands by for failover. When the active node fails, Azure service principals manage IP reassignment and traffic rerouting. Use Cases: Suitable for environments where simpler management and lower operational complexity are preferred over continuous load balancing. Considerations: Failover may result in a brief downtime, typically measured in seconds to a few minutes. Synchronization between the active and passive nodes ensures firewall policies, sessions, and configurations are mirrored. Recommended for smaller deployments or those with predictable traffic patterns. Network Interfaces (NICs) Third-party firewall VMs often include multiple NICs, each dedicated to a specific type of traffic: Untrust/Public NIC: Connects to the Internet or external networks. Handles inbound/outbound public traffic and enforces perimeter security policies. Trust/Internal NIC: Connects to private VNets or subnets. Manages internal traffic between application tiers and enforces internal segmentation. Management NIC: Dedicated to firewall management traffic. Keeps administration separate from data plane traffic, improving security and reducing performance interference. HA NIC (Active-Passive setups): Facilitates synchronization between active and passive firewall nodes, ensuring session and configuration state is maintained across failovers. This design choice is usually made during Landing Zone design, balancing security requirements, budget, and operational maturity. : NICs of Palo Alto External Firewalls and FortiGate Internal Firewalls in two sets of firewall scenario 4. Key Configuration Considerations When deploying third-party firewalls in Azure, several design and configuration elements play a critical role in ensuring security, performance, and high availability. These considerations should be carefully aligned with organizational security policies, compliance requirements, and operational practices. Routing User-Defined Routes (UDRs): Define UDRs in spoke Virtual Networks to ensure all outbound traffic flows through the firewall, enforcing inspection and security policies before reaching the Internet or other Virtual Networks. Centralized routing helps standardize controls across multiple application Virtual Networks. Depending on the architecture traffic flow design, use appropriate Load Balancer IP as the Next Hop on UDRs of spoke Virtual Networks. Symmetric Routing: Ensure traffic follows symmetric paths (i.e., outbound and inbound flows pass through the same firewall instance). Avoid asymmetric routing, which can cause stateful firewalls to drop return traffic. Leverage BGP with Azure Route Server where supported, to simplify route propagation across hub-and-spoke topologies. : Azure UDR directing all traffic from a Spoke VNET to the Firewall IP Address Policies NAT Rules: Configure DNAT (Destination NAT) rules to publish applications securely to the Internet. Use SNAT (Source NAT) to mask private IPs when workloads access external resources. Security Rules: Define granular allow/deny rules for both north-south traffic (Internet to VNet) and east-west traffic (between Virtual Networks or subnets). Ensure least privilege by only allowing required ports, protocols, and destinations. Segmentation: Apply firewall policies to separate workloads, environments, and tenants (e.g., Production vs. Development). Enforce compliance by isolating workloads subject to regulatory standards (PCI-DSS, HIPAA, GDPR). Application-Aware Policies: Many vendors support Layer 7 inspection, enabling controls based on applications, users, and content (not just IP/port). Integrate with identity providers (Azure AD, LDAP, etc.) for user-based firewall rules. : Example Configuration of NAT Rules on a Palo Alto External Firewall Load Balancers Internal Load Balancer (ILB): Use ILBs for east-west traffic inspection between Virtual Networks or subnets. Ensures that traffic between applications always passes through the firewall, regardless of origin. External Load Balancer (ELB): Use ELBs for north-south traffic, handling Internet ingress and egress. Required in Active-Active firewall clusters to distribute traffic evenly across firewall nodes. Other Configurations: Configure health probes for firewall instances to ensure faulty nodes are automatically bypassed. Validate Floating IP configuration on Load Balancing Rules according to the respective vendor recommendations. Identity Integration Azure Service Principals: In Active-Passive deployments, configure service principals to enable automated IP reassignment during failover. This ensures continuous service availability without manual intervention. Role-Based Access Control (RBAC): Integrate firewall management with Azure RBAC to control who can deploy, manage, or modify firewall configurations. SIEM Integration: Stream logs to Azure Monitor, Sentinel, or third-party SIEMs for auditing, monitoring, and incident response. Licensing Pay-As-You-Go (PAYG): Licenses are bundled into the VM cost when deploying from the Azure Marketplace. Best for short-term projects, PoCs, or variable workloads. Bring Your Own License (BYOL): Enterprises can apply existing contracts and licenses with vendors to Azure deployments. Often more cost-effective for large-scale, long-term deployments. Hybrid Licensing Models: Some vendors support license mobility from on-premises to Azure, reducing duplication of costs. 5. Common Challenges Third-party firewalls in Azure provide strong security controls, but organizations often face practical challenges in day-to-day operations: Misconfiguration Incorrect UDRs, route tables, or NAT rules can cause dropped traffic or bypassed inspection. Asymmetric routing is a frequent issue in hub-and-spoke topologies, leading to session drops in stateful firewalls. Performance Bottlenecks Firewall throughput depends on the VM SKU (CPU, memory, NIC limits). Under-sizing causes latency and packet loss, while over-sizing adds unnecessary cost. Continuous monitoring and vendor sizing guides are essential. Failover Downtime Active-Passive models introduce brief service interruptions while IPs and routes are reassigned. Some sessions may be lost even with state sync, making Active-Active more attractive for mission-critical workloads. Backup & Recovery Azure Backup doesn’t support vendor firewall OS. Configurations must be exported and stored externally (e.g., storage accounts, repos, or vendor management tools). Without proper backups, recovery from failures or misconfigurations can be slow. Azure Platform Limits on Connections Azure imposes a per-VM cap of 250,000 active connections, regardless of what the firewall vendor appliance supports. This means even if an appliance is designed for millions of sessions, it will be constrained by Azure’s networking fabric. Hitting this cap can lead to unexplained traffic drops despite available CPU/memory. The workaround is to scale out horizontally (multiple firewall VMs behind a load balancer) and carefully monitor connection distribution. 6. Best Practices for Third-Party Firewall Deployments To maximize security, reliability, and performance of third-party firewalls in Azure, organizations should follow these best practices: Deploy in Availability Zones: Place firewall instances across different Availability Zones to ensure regional resilience and minimize downtime in case of zone-level failures. Prefer Active-Active for Critical Workloads: Where zero downtime is a requirement, use Active-Active clusters behind an Azure Load Balancer. Active-Passive can be simpler but introduces failover delays. Use Dedicated Subnets for Interfaces: Separate trust, untrust, HA, and management NICs into their own subnets. This enforces segmentation, simplifies route management, and reduces misconfiguration risk. Apply Least Privilege Policies: Always start with a deny-all baseline, then allow only necessary applications, ports, and protocols. Regularly review rules to avoid policy sprawl. Standardize Naming & Tagging: Adopt consistent naming conventions and resource tags for firewalls, subnets, route tables, and policies. This aids troubleshooting, automation, and compliance reporting. Validate End-to-End Traffic Flows: Test both north-south (Internet ↔ VNet) and east-west (VNet ↔ VNet/subnet) flows after deployment. Use tools like Azure Network Watcher and vendor traffic logs to confirm inspection. Plan for Scalability: Monitor throughput, CPU, memory, and session counts to anticipate when scale-out or higher VM SKUs are needed. Some vendors support autoscaling clusters for bursty workloads. Maintain Firmware & Threat Signatures: Regularly update the firewall’s software, patches, and threat intelligence feeds to ensure protection against emerging vulnerabilities and attacks. Automate updates where possible. Conclusion Third-party firewalls remain a core building block in many enterprise Azure Landing Zones. They provide the deep security controls and operational familiarity enterprises need, while Azure provides the scalable infrastructure to host them. By following the hub-and-spoke architecture, carefully planning deployment models, and enforcing best practices for routing, redundancy, monitoring, and backup, organizations can ensure a secure and reliable network foundation in Azure.
Using Application Gateway to secure access to the Azure OpenAI Service: Customer success story
Introduction A large enterprise customer set out to build a generative AI application using Azure OpenAI. While the app would be hosted on-premises, the customer wanted to leverage the latest large language models (LLMs) available through Azure OpenAI. However, they faced a critical challenge: how to securely access Azure OpenAI from an on-prem environment without private network connectivity or a full Azure landing zone. This blog post walks through how customers overcame these limitations using Application Gateway as a reverse proxy in front of their Azure Open AI along with other Azure services, to meet their security and governance requirements. Customer landscape and challenges The customer’s environment lacked: Private network connectivity (no Site-to-Site VPN or ExpressRoute). This was due to using a new Azure Government environment and not having a cloud operations team set up yet Common network topology such as Virtual WAN and Hub-Spoke network design A full Enterprise Scale Landing Zone (ESLZ) of common infrastructure Security components like private DNS zones, DNS resolvers, API Management, and firewalls This meant they couldn’t use private endpoints or other standard security controls typically available in mature Azure environments. Security was non-negotiable. Public access to Azure OpenAI was unacceptable. Customer needs to: Restrict access to specific IP CIDR ranges from on-prem user machines and data centers Limit ports communicating with Azure OpenAI Implement a reverse proxy with SSL termination and Web Application Firewall (WAF) Use a customer-provided SSL certificate to secure traffic Proposed solution To address these challenges, the customer designed a secure architecture using the following Azure components: Key Azure services Application Gateway – Layer 7 reverse proxy, SSL termination & Web Application Firewall (WAF) Public IP – Allows communication over public internet between customer’s IP addresses & Azure IP addresses Virtual Network – Allows control of network traffic in Azure Network Security Group (NSG) – Layer 4 network controls such as port numbers, service tags using five-tuple information (source, source port, destination, destination port, protocol) Azure OpenAI – Large Language Model (LLM) NSG configuration Inbound Rules: Allow traffic only from specific IP CIDR ranges and HTTP(S) ports Outbound Rules: Target AzureCloud.<region> with HTTP(S) ports (no service tag for Azure OpenAI yet) Application Gateway setup SSL Certificate: Issued by the customer’s on-prem Certificate Authority HTTPS Listener: Uses the on-prem certificate to terminate SSL Traffic flow: Decrypt incoming traffic Scan with WAF Re-encrypt using a well-known Azure CA Override backend hostname Custom health probe: Configured to detect a 404 response from Azure OpenAI (since no health check endpoint exists) Azure OpenAI configuration IP firewall restrictions: Only allow traffic from the Application Gateway subnet Outcome By combining Application Gateway, NSGs, and custom SSL configurations, the customer successfully secured their Azure OpenAI deployment—without needing a full ESLZ or private connectivity. This approach enabled them to move forward with their generative AI app while maintaining enterprise-grade security and governance.Microsoft Azure scales Hollow Core Fiber (HCF) production through outsourced manufacturing
Introduction As cloud and AI workloads surge, the pressure on datacenter (DC), Metro and Wide Area Network (WAN) networks has never been greater. Microsoft is tackling the physical limits of traditional networking head-on. From pioneering research in microLED technologies to deploying Hollow Core Fiber (HCF) at global scale, Microsoft is reimagining connectivity to power the next era of cloud networking. Azure’s HCF journey has been one of relentless innovation, collaboration, and a vision to redefine the physical layer of the cloud. Microsoft’s HCF, based on the proprietary Double Nested Antiresonant Nodeless Fiber (DNANF) design, delivers up to 47% faster data transmission and approximately 33% lower latency compared to conventional Single Mode Fiber (SMF), bringing significant advantages to the network that powers Azure. Today, Microsoft is announcing a major milestone: the industrial scale-up of HCF production, powered by new strategic manufacturing collaborations with Corning Incorporated (Corning) and Heraeus Covantics (Heraeus). These collaborations will enable Azure to increase the global fiber production of HCF to meet the demands of the growing network infrastructure, advancing the performance and reliability customers expect for cloud and AI workloads. Real-world benefits for Azure customers Since 2023, Microsoft has deployed HCF across multiple Azure regions, with production links meeting performance and reliability targets. As manufacturing scales, Azure plans to expand deployment of the full end-to-end HCF network solution to help increase capacity, resiliency, and speed for customers, with the potential to set new benchmarks for latency and efficiency in fiber infrastructure. Why it matters Microsoft’s proprietary HCF design brings the following improvements for Azure customers: Increased data transmission speeds with up to 33% lower latency. Enhanced signal performance that improves data transmission quality for customers. Improved optical efficiency resulting in higher bandwidth rates compared to conventional fiber. How Microsoft is making it possible To operationalize HCF across Azure with production grade performance, Microsoft is: Deploying a standardized HCF solution with end-to-end systems and components for operational efficiency, streamlined network management, and reliable connectivity across Azure’s infrastructure. Ensuring interoperability with standard SMF environments, enabling seamless integration with existing optical infrastructure in the network for faster deployment and scalable growth. Creating a multinational production supply chain to scale next generation fiber production, ensuring the volumes and speed to market needed for widespread HCF deployment across the Azure network. Scaling up and out With Corning and Heraeus as Microsoft’s first HCF manufacturing collaborators, Azure plans to accelerate deployment to meet surging demand for high-performance connectivity. These collaborations underscore Microsoft’s commitment to enhancing its global infrastructure and delivering a reliable customer experience. They also reinforce Azure’s continued investment in deploying HCF, with a vision for this technology to potentially set the global benchmark for high-capacity fiber innovation. “This milestone marks a new chapter in reimagining the cloud’s physical layer. Our collaborations with Corning and Heraeus establish a resilient, global HCF supply chain so Azure can deliver a standardized, world-class customer experience with ultra-low latency and high reliability for modern AI and cloud workloads.” - Jamie Gaudette, Partner Cloud Network Engineering Manager at Microsoft To scale HCF production, Microsoft will utilize Corning’s established U.S. facilities, while Heraeus will produce out of its sites in both Europe and the U.S. "Corning is excited to expand our longtime collaboration with Microsoft, leveraging Corning’s fiber and cable manufacturing facilities in North Carolina to accelerate the production of Microsoft's Hollow Core Fiber. This collaboration not only strengthens our existing relationship but also underscores our commitment to advancing U.S. leadership in AI innovation and infrastructure. By working closely with Microsoft, we are poised to deliver solutions that meet the demands of AI workloads, setting new benchmarks for speed and efficiency in fiber infrastructure." - Mike O'Day, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Corning Optical Communications “We started our work on HCF a decade ago, teamed up with the Optoelectronics Research Centre (ORC) at the University of Southampton and then with Lumenisity prior to its acquisition. Now, we are excited to continue working with Microsoft on shaping the datacom industry. With leading solutions in glass, tube, preform, and fiber manufacturing, we are ready to scale this disruptive HCF technology to significant volumes. We’ll leverage our proven track record of taking glass and fiber innovations from the lab to widespread adoption, just as we did in the telecom industry, where approximately 2 billion kilometers of fiber are made using Heraeus products.” - Dr. Jan Vydra, Executive Vice President Fiber Optics, Heraeus Covantics Azure engineers are working alongside Corning and Heraeus to operationalize Microsoft manufacturing process intellectual property (IP), deliver targeted training programs, and drive the yield, metrology, and reliability improvements required for scaled production. The collaborations are foundational to a growing standardized, global ecosystem that supports: Glass preform/tubing supply Fiber production at scale Cable and connectivity for deployment into carrier‑grade environments Building on a foundation of innovation: Microsoft’s HCF program In 2022, Microsoft acquired Lumenisity, a spin‑out from the Optoelectronics Research Centre (ORC) at the University of Southampton, UK. That same year, Microsoft launched the world’s first state‑of‑the‑art HCF fabrication facility in the UK to expand production and drive innovation. This purpose-built site continues to support long‑term HCF research, prototyping, and testing, ensuring that Azure remains at the forefront of HCF technology. Working with industry leaders, Microsoft has developed a proven end‑to‑end ecosystem of components, equipment, and HCF‑specific hardware necessary and successfully proven in production deployments and operations. Pushing the boundaries: recent breakthrough research Today, the University of Southampton announced a landmark achievement in optical communications: in collaboration with Azure Fiber researchers, they have demonstrated the lowest signal loss ever recorded for optical fibers (<0.1 dB/km) using research-grade DNANF HCF technology (see figure 4). This breakthrough, detailed in a research paper published in Nature Photonics earlier this month, paves the way for a potential revolution in the field, enabling unprecedented data transmission capacities and longer unamplified spans. ecords at around 1550nm [1] 2002 Nagayama et al. 1 [2] 2025 Sato et al. 2 [3] 2025 research-grade DNANF HCF Petrovich et al. 3 This breakthrough highlights the potential for this technology to transform global internet infrastructure and DC connectivity. Expected benefits include: Faster: Approximately 47% faster, reducing latency, powering real-time AI inference, cloud gaming and other interactive workloads. More capacity: A wider optical spectrum window enabling exponentially greater bandwidth. Future-ready: Lays the groundwork for quantum-safe links, quantum computing infrastructure, advanced sensing, and remote laser delivery. Looking ahead: Unlocking the future of cloud networking The future of cloud networking is being built today! With record-breaking [3] fiber innovations, a rapidly expanding collaborative ecosystem, and the industrialized scale to deliver next-generation performance, Azure continues to evolve to meet the demands for speed, reliability, and connectivity. As we accelerate the deployment of HCF across our global network, we’re not just keeping pace with the demands of AI and cloud, we’re redefining what’s possible. References: [1] Nagayama, K., Kakui, M., Matsui, M., Saitoh, T. & Chigusa, Y. Ultra-low-loss (0.1484 dB/km) pure silica core fibre and extension of transmission distance. Electron. Lett. 38, 1168–1169 (2002). [2] Sato, S., Kawaguchi, Y., Sakuma, H., Haruna, T. & Hasegawa, T. Record low loss optical fiber with 0.1397 dB/km. In Proc. Optical Fiber Communication Conference (OFC) 2024 Tu2E.1 (Optica Publishing Group, 2024). [3] Petrovich, M., Numkam Fokoua, E., Chen, Y., Sakr, H., Isa Adamu, A., Hassan, R., Wu, D., Fatobene Ando, R., Papadimopoulos, A., Sandoghchi, S., Jasion, G., & Poletti, F. Broadband optical fibre with an attenuation lower than 0.1 decibel per kilometre. Nat. Photon. (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41566-025-01747-5 Useful Links: The Deployment of Hollow Core Fiber (HCF) in Azure’s Network How hollow core fiber is accelerating AI | Microsoft Azure Blog Learn more about Microsoft global infrastructureAzure 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.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.
Azure ExpressRoute Direct: A Comprehensive Overview
What is Express Route Azure ExpressRoute allows you to extend your on-premises network into the Microsoft cloud over a private connection made possible through a connectivity provider. With ExpressRoute, you can establish connections to Microsoft cloud services, such as Microsoft Azure, and Microsoft 365. ExpressRoute allows you to create a connection between your on-premises network and the Microsoft cloud in four different ways, CloudExchange Colocation, Point-to-point Ethernet Connection, Any-to-any (IPVPN) Connection, and ExpressRoute Direct. ExpressRoute Direct gives you the ability to connect directly into the Microsoft global network at peering locations strategically distributed around the world. ExpressRoute Direct provides dual 100-Gbps or 10-Gbps connectivity that supports active-active connectivity at scale. Why ExpressRoute Direct Is Becoming the Preferred Choice for Customers ExpressRoute Direct with ExpressRoute Local – Free Egress: ExpressRoute Direct includes ExpressRoute Local, which allows private connectivity to Azure services within the same metro or peering location. This setup is particularly cost-effective because egress (outbound) data transfer is free, regardless of whether you're on a metered or unlimited data plan. By avoiding Microsoft's global backbone, ExpressRoute Local offers high-speed, low-latency connections for regionally co-located workloads without incurring additional data transfer charges. Dual Port Architecture Both ExpressRoute Direct and the service provider model feature a dual-port architecture, with two physical fiber pairs connected to separate Microsoft router ports and configured in an active/active BGP setup that distributes traffic across both links simultaneously for redundancy and improved throughput. What sets Microsoft apart is making this level of resiliency standard, not optional. Forward-thinking customers in regions like Sydney take it even further by deploying ExpressRoute Direct across multiple colocation facilities for example, placing one port pair in Equinix SY2 and another in NextDC S1 creating four connections across two geographically separate sites. This design protects against facility-level outages from power failures, natural disasters, or accidental infrastructure damage, ensuring business continuity for organizations where downtime is simply not an option. When Geography Limits Your Options: Not every region offers facility diversity, example New Zealand has only one ExpressRoute peering location, businesses needing geographic redundancy must connect to Sydney incurring Auckland to Sydney link costs but gaining critical diversity to mitigate outages. While ExpressRoute’s dual ports provide active/active redundancy, both are on the same Microsoft edge, so true disaster recovery requires using Sydney’s edge. ExpressRoute Direct scales from basic dual-port setups to multi-facility deployments and offers another advantage: free data transfer within the same geopolitical region. Once traffic enters Microsoft’s network, New Zealand customers can move data between Azure services across the trans-Tasman link without per-GB fees, with Microsoft absorbing those costs. Premium SKU: Global Reach: Azure ExpressRoute Direct with the Premium SKU enables Global Reach, allowing private connectivity between your on-premises networks across different geographic regions through Microsoft's global backbone. This means you can link ExpressRoute circuits in different countries or continents, facilitating secure and high-performance data exchange between global offices or data centers. The Premium SKU extends the capabilities of ExpressRoute Direct by supporting cross-region connectivity, increased route limits, and access to more Azure regions, making it ideal for multinational enterprises with distributed infrastructure. MACsec: Defense in Depth and Enterprise Security ExpressRoute Direct uniquely supports MACsec (IEEE 802.1AE) encryption at the data-link layer, allowing your router and Microsoft's router to establish encrypted communication even within the colocation facility. This optional feature provides additional security for compliance-sensitive workloads in banking or government environments. High-Performance Data Transfer for the Enterprise: Azure ExpressRoute Direct enables ultra-fast and secure data transfer between on-premises infrastructure and Azure by offering dedicated bandwidth of 10 to 100 Gbps. This high-speed connectivity is ideal for large-scale data movement scenarios such as AI workloads, backup, and disaster recovery. It ensures consistent performance, low latency, and enhanced reliability, making it well-suited for hybrid and multicloud environments that require frequent or time-sensitive data synchronization. FastPath Support: Azure ExpressRoute Direct now supports FastPath for Private Endpoints and Private Link, enabling low-latency, high-throughput connections by bypassing the virtual network gateway. This feature is available only with ExpressRoute Direct circuits (10 Gbps or 100 Gbps) and is in limited general availability. While a gateway is still needed for route exchange, traffic flows directly once FastPath is enabled. Supported gateway ExpressRoute Direct Setup Workflow Before provisioning ExpressRoute Direct resources, proper planning is essential. Key considerations for connectivity include understanding the two connectivity patterns available for ExpressRoute Direct from the customer edge to Microsoft Enterprise Edge (MSEE). Option 1: Colocation of Customer Equipment: This is a common pattern where the customer racks their network device (edge router) in the same third-party data center facility that houses Microsoft's networking gear (e.g., Equinix or NextDC). They install their router or firewall there and then order a short cross-connect from their cage to Microsoft's cage in that facility. The cross-connect is simply a fiber cable run through the facility's patch panel connecting the two parties. This direct colocation approach has the advantage of a single, highly efficient physical link (no intermediate hops) between the customer and Microsoft, completing the layer-1 connectivity in one step. Option 2: Using a Carrier/Exchange Provider: If the customer prefers not to move hardware into a new facility (due to cost or complexity), they can leverage a provider that already has presence in the relevant colocation. In this case, the customer connects from their data center to the provider's network, and the provider extends connectivity into the Microsoft peering location. For instance, the customer could contract with Megaport or a local telco to carry traffic from their on-premises location into Megaport's equipment, and Megaport in turn handles the cross-connection to Microsoft in the target facility. The conversation cited that the customer had already set up connections to Megaport in their data center. Using an exchange can simplify logistics since the provider arranges the cross-connect and often provides an LOA on the customer's behalf. It may also be more cost-effective where the customer's location is far from any Microsoft peering site. Many enterprises find that placing equipment in a well-connected colocation facility works best for their needs. Banks and large organizations have successfully taken this approach, such as placing routers in Equinix Sydney or NextDC Sydney to establish a direct fiber link to Azure. However, we understand that not every organization wants the capital expense or complexity of managing physical equipment in a new location. For those situations, using a cloud exchange like Megaport offers a practical alternative that still delivers the dedicated connectivity you're looking for, while letting someone else handle the infrastructure management. Once the decision on the connectivity pattern is made, the next step is to provision ExpressRoute Direct ports and establish the physical link: Step1: Provisioning Express Route Direct Ports Through the Azure portal (or CLI), the customer creates an ExpressRoute Direct resource. Customer must select an appropriate peering location, which corresponds to the colocation facility housing Azure's routers. For example, the customer would select the specific facility (such as "Vocus Auckland" or "Equinix Sydney SY2") where they intend to connect. Customer also choose the port bandwidth (either 10 Gbps or 100 Gbps) and the encapsulation type (Dot1Q or QinQ) during this setup. Azure then allocates two ports on two separate Microsoft devices in that location – essentially giving the customer a primary and secondary interface for redundancy, to remove a single point of failure affecting their connectivity. ****Critical considerations we need to keep in mind during this step**** Encapsulation: When configuring ExpressRoute Direct ports, the customer must choose an encapsulation method. Dot1Q (802.1Q) uses a single VLAN tag for the circuit, whereas Q-in-Q (802.1ad) uses stacked VLAN tags (an Outer S-Tag and Inner C-Tag). Q-in-Q allows multiple circuits on one physical port with overlapping customer VLAN IDs because Azure assigns a unique outer tag per circuit (making it ideal if the customer needs several ExpressRoute circuits on the same port). Dot1Q, by contrast, requires each VLAN ID to be unique across all circuits on the port, and is often used if the equipment doesn’t support Q-in-Q. (Most modern deployments prefer Q-in-Q for flexibility.) Capacity Planning: This offering allows customers to overprovision and utilize 20Gbps of capacity. Design for 10 Gbps with redundancy, not 20 Gbps total capacity. During Microsoft's monthly maintenance windows, one port may go offline, and your network must handle this seamlessly. Step 2: Generate Letter of Authorization After the ExpressRoute Direct resource is created, Microsoft generates a Letter of Authorization. The LOA is a document (often a PDF) that authorizes the data center operator to connect a specific Microsoft port to the designated port. It includes details like the facility name, patch panel identifier, and port numbers on Microsoft's side. If co-locating your own gear, you will also obtain a corresponding LOA from the facility for your port (or simply indicate your port details on the cross-connect order form). If a provider like Megaport is involved, that provider will generate an LOA for their port as well. Two LOAs are typically needed – one for Microsoft's ports and one for the other party's ports which are then submitted to the facility to execute the cross-connect. Step 3: Complete Cross Connect with data center provider Using the LOAs, the data center’s technicians will perform the cross-connection in the meet-me room. At this point, the physical fiber link is established between the Microsoft router and the customer (or provider) equipment. The link goes through a patch panel in the MMR – Meet me room rather than a direct cable between cages, for security and manageability. After patching, the circuit is in place but typically kept “administratively down” until ready. *****Critical considerations we need to keep in mind during this step. ***** When port allocation conflicts occur, engage Microsoft Support rather than recreating resources. They coordinate with colocation providers to resolve conflicts or issue new LOAs. Step 4: Change Admin Status of each link Once the cross-connect is physically completed, you can head into Azure's portal and flip the Admin State of each ExpressRoute Direct link to "Enabled." This action lights up the optical interface on Microsoft's side and starts your billing meter running, so you'll want to make sure everything is working properly first. The great thing is that Azure gives you visibility into the health of your fiber connection through optical power metrics. You can check the receive light levels right in the portal , a healthy connection should show power readings somewhere between -1 dBm and -9 dBm, which indicates a strong fiber signal. If you're seeing readings outside this range, or worse, no light at all, that's a red flag pointing to a potential issue like a mis-patch or faulty fiber connector. There was a real case where someone had a bad fiber connector that was caught because the light levels were too low, and the facility had to come back and re-patch the connection. So, this optical power check is really your first line of defence , once you see good light levels within the acceptable range, you know your physical layer is solid and you're ready to move on to the next steps. ****Critical considerations we need to keep in mind during this step. **** Proactive Monitoring: Set up alerts for BGP session failures and optical power thresholds. Link failures might not immediately impact users but require quick restoration to maintain full redundancy. At this stage, you've successfully navigated the physical infrastructure challenge, ExpressRoute Direct port pair is provisioned, fiber cross-connects are in place, and those critical optical power levels are showing healthy readings. Essentially, private physical highway directly connecting your network edge to Microsoft's backbone infrastructure has been built Step 5: Create Express Route Circuits ExpressRoute circuits represent the logical layer that transforms your physical ExpressRoute Direct ports into functional network connections. Through the Azure portal, organizations create circuit resources linked to their ExpressRoute Direct infrastructure, specifying bandwidth requirements and selecting the appropriate SKU (Local, Standard, or Premium) based on connectivity needs. A key advantage is the ability to provision multiple circuits on the same physical port pair, provided aggregate bandwidth stays within physical limits. For example, an organization with 10 Gbps ExpressRoute Direct might run a 1 Gbps non-production circuit alongside a 5 Gbps production circuit on the same infrastructure. Azure handles the technical complexity through automatic VLAN management: Step 6: Establish Peering Once your ExpressRoute circuit is created and VLAN connectivity is established, the next crucial step involves setting up BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) sessions between your network and Microsoft's infrastructure. ExpressRoute supports two primary BGP peering types: Private Peering for accessing Azure Virtual Networks and Microsoft Peering for reaching Microsoft SaaS services like Office 365 and Azure PaaS offerings. For most enterprise scenarios connecting data centers to Azure workloads, Private Peering becomes the focal point. Azure provides specific BGP IP addresses for your circuit configuration, defining /30 subnets for both primary and secondary link peering, which you'll configure on your edge router to exchange routing information. The typical flow involves your organization advertising on-premises network prefixes while Azure advertises VNet prefixes through these BGP sessions, creating dynamic route discovery between your environments. Importantly, both primary and secondary links maintain active BGP sessions, ensuring that if one connection fails, the secondary BGP session seamlessly maintains connectivity and keeps your network resilient against single points of failure. Step 7: Routing and Testing Once BGP sessions are established, your ExpressRoute circuit becomes fully operational, seamlessly extending your on-premises network into Azure virtual networks. Connectivity testing with ping, traceroute, and application traffic confirms that your on-premises servers can now communicate directly with Azure VMs through the private ExpressRoute path, bypassing the public internet entirely. The traffic remains completely isolated to your circuit via VLAN tags, ensuring no intermingling with other tenants while delivering the low latency and predictable performance that only dedicated connectivity can provide. At the end of this stage, the customer’s data center is linked to Azure at layer-3 via a private, resilient connection. They can access Azure resources as if they were on the same LAN extension, with low latency and high throughput. All that remains is to connect this circuit to relevant Azure virtual networks (via an ExpressRoute Gateway) and verify end-to-end application traffic. Step by step instructions are available as below Configure Azure ExpressRoute Direct using the Azure portal | Microsoft Learn Azure ExpressRoute: Configure ExpressRoute Direct | Microsoft Learn Azure ExpressRoute: Configure ExpressRoute Direct: CLI | Microsoft LearnCombining 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.
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.
