Yeah,  I thought of that too but I've been messing with this for months now
and I'm growing weary lol. plus go live date its getting close. I also
wanted something not too complex that could bite us in production. However,
if I muster the time and energy to try it, would I need sever 2012 for the
"free" proxy solution? It would be ARR?
On May 9, 2014 1:05 PM, "Kennedy, Jim" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thinking out loud.
>
> Load balancer out front balancing a group of reverse proxies.
> ________________________________________
> From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on
> behalf of ccollins9 [[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 12:34 PM
> To: exchange
> Subject: Re: [Exchange] CAS exposure - Exchange 2013 SP1
>
> Yes, EX2013 supports client certs and we have them turned on and working.
>  The issue with reverse proxy from the load balancers, it needs to decrypt
> the packet at the LB to read the header to know where to send the
> connection (owa vs. ActiveSync, vs. EWS, etc.), and for that it would need
> to support decrypting with respect to client certificate.  We haven't been
> able to get it working.  But i do see that with a recent software update,
> my LB supports client certs, so maybe it will work if I set the AS
> directory back to Basic Auth/No client certs and require the client cert at
> the LB.  This is similar to what we had to do in order to have EX2013 proxy
> client cert connections to EX2010 CAS servers.  We needed to reset EX2010
> to basic auth/no certs and EX2013 took care of the connections coming in
> with client certs.  FYI, EX2013 supports client certs and works, but the
> line I got from  MS Premier support is that THEY won't support it until
> perhaps EX2013 SP1 CU1.  Which I thought was just plain stupid.  But it
> works so far.
>
>
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Michael B. Smith <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> I suspect I need a diagram. Exchange 2013 supports client certs for
> ActiveSync (and for all the other web protocols also).
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to