Joost Groot

My feedback

  1. 406 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    22 comments  ·  Networking » Application Gateway  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Joost Groot commented  · 

    It's such a waste to disable "Inspect Request body". But I have to since a Microsoft part of viewstate has a larger body then 128K and I just cant use it with the WAF else.

    Atleast the headers and cookies are still checked.

    Please Microsoft. This feature is set to Planned (april 6, 2018). Is there any indication one when it's active?

    Joost Groot supported this idea  · 
  2. 196 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    10 comments  ·  Networking » Application Gateway  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thanks for the valid suggestion. Your feedback is now open for the user community to upvote which allows us to effectively prioritize your request against our existing feature list and also gives us insight into the potential impact of implementing the suggested feature

    Joost Groot supported this idea  · 
  3. 5 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  (General Feedback) » Other  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Joost Groot shared this idea  · 
  4. 944 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    39 comments  ·  Networking » Application Gateway  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  5. 58 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    14 comments  ·  Azure Resource Manager  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thanks for the valid suggestion. Your feedback is now open for the user community to upvote & comment on. This allows us to effectively prioritize your request against our existing feature backlog and also gives us insight into the potential impact of implementing the suggested feature.

    Joost Groot supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Joost Groot commented  · 

    Creating a set of listeners with multiple SSL certificates takes ages. I can only add them one by one and after the initial upload the Application Gateway is in "updating" state and I can't add anything else. I will just have to wait again for over 10minutes or so.

    This way, adding 20 SSL's is taking a whole day.

  6. 182 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    planned  ·  3 comments  ·  Networking » Application Gateway  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Joost Groot commented  · 

    The dutch governement has made up a rule list on what a site or online application should offer for security and compliancy. And one of the items is supporting IPv6 so the sollution is future proof.

    The only IPv6 options at the moment are IPv6 directly added as public IP to a VM or via a Frond Door app. The frontdoor app would be sufficient, if it had a static IP. Working with cnames directing to Azure.net or Azurefd.net is not okay. The azure.net and azurefd.net doesn't have a DNSSEC running on it so this wil even set back the security of the offered app solution more.

    It's strange and frustrating that Microsoft Azure have not implement this IPv6 to resources as AppGW's and such. This forces a lot of sollution providers to look elsewhere for there hosting. Specialy when creating governement related applications.

    Joost Groot supported this idea  · 
  7. 313 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    49 comments  ·  Azure Active Directory » Domain Services  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    UPDATE 01/06/2020
    Multiple scenarios are still being investigated.
    (We changed the status to because Started implied we were working on the feature and we did not want to represent it inaccurately. We are investigating and therefore, we are marking it under review.

    Joost Groot supported this idea  · 
  8. 62 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    9 comments  ·  SQL Managed Instance  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    This is a difficult one to handle technically. However the main theme is cost savings. Are there other cost-saving options (other than pausing) that could address this concern? For example, smaller vCore Managed Instances etc.? On the other hand, implementing pausable Managed Instance can also mean that resuming them will take several hours each time. Is this a concern? Thank you.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Joost Groot commented  · 

    If a lower size option is available changing to a lower size will reduce costs. But then a scheduled change would be great if it was built in. Or even better auto scale. Where you can setup basic 4cores or 8 cores and allow SQL to scale to 16, 24 or even 32 cores (if you have the funds) when it's needed.

    Joost Groot supported this idea  · 
  9. 93 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    13 comments  ·  SQL Managed Instance  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    LTR (Long Term Retention) backup for Managed Instance is being worked on and should be expected in a preview in calendar year 2020. Updates will follow when the feature becomes available.

    Joost Groot supported this idea  · 
  10. 40 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  SQL Managed Instance  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Joost Groot supported this idea  · 
  11. 37 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  SQL Managed Instance  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Joost Groot supported this idea  · 
  12. 21 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  SQL Managed Instance  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Joost Groot supported this idea  · 
  13. 81 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    5 comments  ·  Azure Active Directory » Azure AD Connect  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Joost Groot supported this idea  · 
  14. 6 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  Azure portal  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Joost Groot supported this idea  · 
  15. 198 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    15 comments  ·  Web Apps » Notifications  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Joost Groot supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Joost Groot commented  · 

    I can not for the life of me understand why MS creates a backup option in something without notification option. We have over 100 AppServices running. Do you realy think it's an option to check all the app services every day for backup status?

    Please built in a simple "alert when failed" and "alert when warning"!!

Feedback and Knowledge Base