Dec 022010
 

Recently I came across something interesting when building a new ISA environment where the Firewall Client will be mostly what is used. Almost all the traffic needs to be authenticated before being sent to its destination. Since the Firewall Client is designed for that (the traffic is not just HTTP(s) and FTP over HTTP) we advised to install the Firewall Client on every Citrix Server and clients.

However during some initial testing I noticed something weird. Although some of the traffic is being balanced, I noticed that the Firewall Client isn’t balanced at all. At first I was really stumped and I didn’t know where to look to troubleshoot. I checked and checked and triple checked the configuration to make sure everything was set correctly. I’d even let a colleague of mine check it again to prevent myself from thinking in circles. Still I couldn’t find any weird configuration issues and neither could my colleague.

image

Note: The screenshot is made off hours so SecureNat is also imbalanced at the moment. This is not important for this article 😉

So what happened over here? In the end I was pointed by Jason Jones to this Microsoft article where Microsoft stated:

Load balancing is not supported with Forefront TMG Clients or ISA Firewall Clients

Issue: Client machines running Forefront TMG Clients or ISA Firewall Clients may have issues connecting to an array of Forefront TMG servers with any type of load balancing configured on the related Forefront TMG network.

Cause: Load balancing (either integrated or using an external load balancer) is not supported together with Forefront TMG Clients or ISA Firewall Clients.

Solution: Instead of using a load balancer, use DNS round robin to point the clients to the Forefront TMG array member’s dedicated IP addresses.

Hmmm. This is not fun. What’s the reason you should use DNS round robin? Is this by design? Why is that?? After further investigating and talking with Jason Jones I heard the following:

The FW client uses a control channel to facilitate authentication and communication with the TMG firewall. For proper operation, Firewall Clients must therefore be configured to communicate directly with the TMG firewall’s dedicated IP address (DIP) not the VIP.

Jason Jones is a MVP for Microsoft Forefront for a pretty long time and I’ll trust him. Personally I’m not very fond of using DNS round robin to balance such. It might be because the design of the Firewall Client. In my opinion Microsoft should address this “issue”.

Oh, Before I forget, the reason why I have a problem with this is because I see an issue coming up when one node fails. Just imagine this:

A FWC client is configured to use a DNS name to connect to the ISA or Forefront TMG array. Lets say you would use FWCArray.domain.com

The client will lookup an IP address for that DNS record and will receive an IP address from the failed host. The FWC tries to connect to the failed ISA server. If the host doesn’t respond you would not be connected. I’m not sure what exactly would happen since this is truly new for me but I guess you’ll never get connected until your lucky enough that the client will receive the IP address of the functioning ISA/TMG node.

I’m forced to use this configuration for one of my clients  but trust me, it doesn’t really feel good. 😉