David Schlum

My feedback

  1. 179 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    7 comments  ·  Storage » Managed Disk Storage  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    David Schlum supported this idea  · 
  2. 580 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    David Schlum supported this idea  · 
  3. 359 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    20 comments  ·  Networking » Application Gateway  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    We have raised the limit to 100 recently. We are regularly reviewing the limits and will continue to look for opportunities to raise the limits even further. If you have scenarios requiring limits higher than what is supported, please add your scenario details here (if you are comfortable with that) or raise an issue with Azure support and we will get back to you.

    David Schlum commented  · 

    Definitely need this. It just so happens that the project I'm working on with a client has exactly 10 unique domains so with http to https redirects and the https listener, I'm able to make it work. However, if the client wants to add even one more site on their multisite CMS, we'll have to spin up a whole new Application Gateway to the tune of $200/month. This seems like an artificial limitation as I've never seen another firewall strictly limit what amounts to reverse proxies behind it. I come from a Microsoft TMG world and it would be unthinkable to only be able to add 20 sites behind one.

    In another month when the client is planning to move another site over to Azure and into their multisite CMS, this becomes a problem. Can support at least punch a number in on the backend to lift this limitation?

    David Schlum supported this idea  · 
  4. 288 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    8 comments  ·  Networking » Virtual Networks (VNET)  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    David Schlum supported this idea  · 
  5. 283 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    9 comments  ·  Networking » Application Gateway  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Support for both public and private IP at the same time is available on both V1 and V2 SKU. Customers can host multiple sites behind the same IP and port using multi-site listener today.

    Support for allowing same port on both public and private IP is in the roadmap.

    David Schlum supported this idea  · 
  6. 709 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    29 comments  ·  Networking » Application Gateway  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    David Schlum supported this idea  · 
    David Schlum commented  · 

    Just ran into this today. I have a multi-site CMS that supports subdomains for different sites. It would be ideal to be able to configure *.domain.com so that I don't have to set up separate listeners for every site. I also like the idea of at least giving me the option of specifying multiple hosts per listener. AND, why in the world am I only limited to 20 listeners??

  7. 2,922 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    121 comments  ·  Storage » Files  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hi folks,

    We have shipped a public preview of integration with AAD DS: https://azure.microsoft.com/blog/azure-active-directory-integration-for-smb-access-now-in-public-preview/

    What we have in preview is a first step along a much larger roadmap for integration with AAD/AD for authentication and authorization. As the blog post says, this initial preview is really about Windows cloud VM access to the Azure file share with an AAD identity. Future refreshes to this feature will add non-Windows (Linux, macOS, etc) support, and the ability to mount the Azure file shares on-premises with your AAD identity. You can learn more about this in our Ignite session as well (at around 22:00): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMzh2M66E9o

    We’ll keep you updated on our progress. In the meantime, don’t hesitate to continue posting feedback on this feature below.

    Thanks,

    Will Gries
    Program Manager, Azure Files

    David Schlum supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base