Hi Matt,

The issue with LDAP, is that it is not a banner protocol.
So either you check the TCP port is well bound on the server for a
simple L4 check, for L7, you don't have the choice, you must send a
message and check the server's result.

Baptiste


On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Matt . <yamakasi....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm also testing some ldap checks but I see lots of logging and log
> partitions filling up like crazy.
>
> I wonder if it's really doable to check the ldap status in in a gracefull way.
>
> 2015-03-31 9:45 GMT+02:00 Neil - HAProxy List
> <maillist-hapr...@iamafreeman.com>:
>> Hello
>>
>> I was thinking of updating the ldap-check but I think I've a better idea.
>> Macros (well ish).
>>
>>   send-binary 300c0201 # LDAP bind request "<ROOT>" simple
>>   send-binary 01 # message ID
>>   send-binary 6007 # protocol Op
>>   send-binary 0201 # bind request
>>   send-binary 03 # LDAP v3
>>   send-binary 04008000 # name, simple authentication
>>   expect binary 0a0100 # bind response + result code: success
>>   send-binary 30050201034200 # unbind request
>>
>> could be in a file named macros/ldap-simple-bind
>>
>> then the option
>>  tcp-check-macro ldap-simple-bind
>>
>> would use it, I know this is close to includes.
>>
>> similarly macros/smtp-helo-quit
>>          connect port 25
>>          expect rstring ^220
>>          send QUIT\r\n
>>          expect rstring ^221
>>
>>
>> or from
>> http://blog.haproxy.com/2014/06/06/binary-health-check-with-haproxy-1-5-php-fpmfastcgi-probe-example/
>> # FCGI_BEGIN_REQUEST
>>  send-binary   01 # version
>>  send-binary   01 # FCGI_BEGIN_REQUEST
>>  send-binary 0001 # request id
>>  send-binary 0008 # content length
>>  send-binary   00 # padding length
>>  send-binary   00 #
>>  send-binary 0001 # FCGI responder
>>  send-binary 0000 # flags
>>  send-binary 0000 #
>>  send-binary 0000 #
>>  # FCGI_PARAMS
>>  send-binary   01 # version
>>  send-binary   04 # FCGI_PARAMS
>>  send-binary 0001 # request id
>>  send-binary 0045 # content length
>>  send-binary   03 # padding length: padding for content % 8 = 0
>>  send-binary   00 #
>>  send-binary 0e03524551554553545f4d4554484f44474554 # REQUEST_METHOD = GET
>>  send-binary 0b055343524950545f4e414d452f70696e67   # SCRIPT_NAME = /ping
>>  send-binary 0f055343524950545f46494c454e414d452f70696e67 # SCRIPT_FILENAME
>> = /ping
>>  send-binary 040455534552524F4F54 # USER = ROOT
>>  send-binary 000000 # padding
>>  # FCGI_PARAMS
>>  send-binary   01 # version
>>  send-binary   04 # FCGI_PARAMS
>>  send-binary 0001 # request id
>>  send-binary 0000 # content length
>>  send-binary   00 # padding length: padding for content % 8 = 0
>>  send-binary   00 #
>>
>>  expect binary 706f6e67 # pong
>>
>> (though for items like
>> send-binary 0e03524551554553545f4d4554484f44474554 # REQUEST_METHOD = GET
>> I'd prefer a
>> send-as-binary "REQUEST_METHOD = GET"
>> )
>>
>> these and many others could be shipped with haproxy.
>>
>> this seems to make sense to me as they are small contained logical items
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
>> On 30 March 2015 at 23:02, Baptiste <bed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> you should believe it :)
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Neil - HAProxy List
>>> <maillist-hapr...@iamafreeman.com> wrote:
>>> > Hello
>>> >
>>> > Thanks so much. That worked well, I now get
>>> > L7OK/0 in 0ms
>>> > not sure I believe the 0ms but maybe I should
>>> >
>>> > Thanks again,
>>> >
>>> > Neil
>>> >
>>> > On 30 March 2015 at 22:14, Baptiste <bed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Neil - HAProxy List
>>> >> <maillist-hapr...@iamafreeman.com> wrote:
>>> >> > Hello
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I'm trying to use ldap-check with active directory and the response
>>> >> > active
>>> >> > directory gives is not one ldap-check is happy to accept
>>> >> >
>>> >> > when I give a 389 directory backend ldap server all is well, when I
>>> >> > use
>>> >> > AD I
>>> >> > get 'Not LDAPv3 protocol'
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I've done a little poking about and found that
>>> >> >                         if ((msglen > 2) ||
>>> >> >                             (memcmp(check->bi->data + 2 + msglen,
>>> >> > "\x02\x01\x01\x61", 4) != 0)) {
>>> >> >                                 set_server_check_status(check,
>>> >> > HCHK_STATUS_L7RSP, "Not LDAPv3 protocol");
>>> >> > is where I'm getting stopped as msglen is 4
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Here is tcpdump of 389 directory response (the one that works) 2
>>> >> > packets
>>> >> > 21:29:34.195699 IP 389.ldap > HAPROXY.57109: Flags [.], ack 15, win
>>> >> > 905,
>>> >> > options [nop,nop,TS val 856711882 ecr 20393440], length 0
>>> >> >     0x0000:  0050 5688 7042 0064 403b 2700 0800 4500
>>> >> > .PV.pB.d@;'...E.
>>> >> >     0x0010:  0034 9d07 4000 3f06 3523 ac1b e955 ac18
>>> >> > .4..@.?.5#...U..
>>> >> >     0x0020:  2810 0185 df15 5cab ffcd 63ba 77d3 8010
>>> >> > (.....\...c.w...
>>> >> >     0x0030:  0389 2c07 0000 0101 080a 3310 62ca 0137
>>> >> > ..,.......3.b..7
>>> >> >     0x0040:  2de0                                     -.
>>> >> > 21:29:34.195958 IP 389.ldap > HAPROXY.57109: Flags [P.], seq 1:15,
>>> >> > ack
>>> >> > 15,
>>> >> > win 905, options [nop,nop,TS val 856711882 ecr 20393440], length 14
>>> >> >     0x0000:  0050 5688 7042 0064 403b 2700 0800 4500
>>> >> > .PV.pB.d@;'...E.
>>> >> >     0x0010:  0042 9d08 4000 3f06 3514 ac1b e955 ac18
>>> >> > .B..@.?.5....U..
>>> >> >     0x0020:  2810 0185 df15 5cab ffcd 63ba 77d3 8018
>>> >> > (.....\...c.w...
>>> >> >     0x0030:  0389 e878 0000 0101 080a 3310 62ca 0137
>>> >> > ...x......3.b..7
>>> >> >     0x0040:  2de0 300c 0201 0161 070a 0100 0400 0400
>>> >> > -.0....a........
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Here is tcpdump of active directory (broken) 1 packet
>>> >> >
>>> >> > 21:25:24.519883 IP ADSERVER.ldap > HAPROXY.57789: Flags [P.], seq
>>> >> > 1:23,
>>> >> > ack
>>> >> > 15, win 260, options [nop,nop,TS val 1870785 ecr 20331021], length 22
>>> >> >     0x0000:  0050 5688 7042 0050 5688 7780 0800 4500
>>> >> > .PV.pB.PV.w...E.
>>> >> >     0x0010:  004a 1d7d 4000 8006 34e3 ac18 280d ac18
>>> >> > .J.}@...4...(...
>>> >> >     0x0020:  2810 0185 e1bd 5a3f 2ae7 3ced 7b5b 8018
>>> >> > (.....Z?*.<.{[..
>>> >> >     0x0030:  0104 1d7a 0000 0101 080a 001c 8bc1 0136
>>> >> > ...z...........6
>>> >> >     0x0040:  3a0d 3084 0000 0010 0201 0161 8400 0000
>>> >> > :.0........a....
>>> >> >     0x0050:  070a 0100 0400 0400
>>> >> >
>>> >> > this was discussed but not finished before see
>>> >> > http://www.serverphorums.com/read.php?10,394453
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I can see the string \02\01\01\61 is there but not in the correct
>>> >> > place
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Anyone have any ideas about fixing this so that both (and possibly
>>> >> > other)
>>> >> > ldap implementations work?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Thanks,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Neil
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Neil
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes you can switch to the tcp-check checking method.
>>> >> I works with binary protocols as well.
>>> >> Here is what I use for the AD in my lab:
>>> >>
>>> >>  option tcp-check
>>> >>  tcp-check connect port 389
>>> >>  tcp-check send-binary 300c0201 # LDAP bind request "<ROOT>" simple
>>> >>  tcp-check send-binary 01 # message ID
>>> >>  tcp-check send-binary 6007 # protocol Op
>>> >>  tcp-check send-binary 0201 # bind request
>>> >>  tcp-check send-binary 03 # LDAP v3
>>> >>  tcp-check send-binary 04008000 # name, simple authentication
>>> >>  tcp-check expect binary 0a0100 # bind response + result code: success
>>> >>  tcp-check send-binary 30050201034200 # unbind request
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> You could add the same sequence for LDAPs on port 636:
>>> >>  tcp-check connect port 636 ssl
>>> >>  tcp-check send-binary 300c0201 # LDAP bind request "<ROOT>" simple
>>> >>  tcp-check send-binary 01 # message ID
>>> >>  tcp-check send-binary 6007 # protocol Op
>>> >>  tcp-check send-binary 0201 # bind request
>>> >>  tcp-check send-binary 03 # LDAP v3
>>> >>  tcp-check send-binary 04008000 # name, simple authentication
>>> >>  tcp-check expect binary 0a0100 # bind response + result code: success
>>> >>  tcp-check send-binary 30050201034200 # unbind request
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Note for myself: put this tip on the blog..
>>> >>
>>> >> Baptiste
>>> >
>>> >

Reply via email to