Update: Microsoft will be moving away from UserVoice sites on a product-by-product basis throughout the 2021 calendar year. We will leverage 1st party solutions for customer feedback. Learn more here.

Iain Morris

My feedback

  1. 35 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  0 comments  ·  Azure Backup » IaaS VM  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Iain Morris supported this idea  · 
  2. 1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Networking » Network Security Groups  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Iain Morris commented  · 

    Or better have the NSGs include ASGs in the rule stated in https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-network/network-security-groups-overview "Virtual machines in load-balanced pools: The source port and address range applied are from the originating computer, not the load balancer. The destination port and address range are for the destination computer, not the load balancer" so that the Load Balancer is transparent and the rule reads"... port and address range or ASG..." then no special rules are required for the LB.

  3. 14 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Iain Morris supported this idea  · 
  4. 19 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    triaged  ·  3 comments  ·  Networking » Virtual Network  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Iain Morris supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Iain Morris commented  · 

    I have this issue as well. I have Primary and DR subnets in Primary and DR regions, with the same subnets (same names, different base IP address for the two VNets) with some servers running in DR Region subnets synching with their equivalent servers in the Primary Region (they might be DCs, or SQL Servers that are part of a SQL Server AOAG, or applications synching data, whatever). The high availability servers in the Primary Region subnets can intercommunicate without going through a firewall (they are in the same subnet(s)) but traffic to servers in different subnets should go through the firewall - e.g. web to app to db tiers - whether they are in the same VNet or the other Region's VNet. BUT why shouldn't my DCs (or SQL Servers etc.) in the two Regions be able communicate directly, without going through (2) firewalls? I *should* be able to override my UDR "to-DR-vnet/16 via local-fw-ip" with a longer prefix UDR "to-same-sn-in-DR/24 via VNet(Global)Peering". Instead what happens is that you are allowed to build the Route Table (choosing "Virtual network" as the most appropriate option, as VNetPeering/VNetGlobalPeering are not available) but when you look at the Effective Routes for a NIC in the subnet, the "Virtual network" next hop type has been silently changed to "None" and all the replication traffic is dropped. All traffic between the subnets *has* to go through the (2) firewalls unless (as OP says) you define multiple UDRs for routing traffic to all of the other DR subnets via the firewalls, leaving just this subnet to communicate directly with its peer using the little bit of the original System DR-vnet/16 VNetGlobalPeering route that hasn't been overridden by a longer prefix for another subnet.

  5. 333 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    18 comments  ·  Networking » Virtual Network  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Iain Morris supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Iain Morris commented  · 

    Agreed, we have subnets for Azure Firewall, Application Gateway / WAF and P2S VNGs with traffic between Regions. Effective routes display is particularly needed when an effective route's next hop type is silently changed to None and packets are dropped.

  6. 88 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    triaged  ·  5 comments  ·  Networking » Load Balancer  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Iain Morris supported this idea  · 
  7. 113 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Networking » Load Balancer  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Iain Morris supported this idea  · 
  8. 26 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  Virtual Machines » Bugs  ·  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

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Iain Morris commented  · 

    I have looked for *any* information on B series networkig begfore and not found any - this time I found the GitHub thread https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/issues/8765 which links to this and expresses my need well. Anything giving a minimum (Do not select B-series VMs if you need network bandwidth >100Mbps at any time) or expected variability (Network bandwidth may reduce to 20% of typical maximum bandwidth during times of high network demand) would at least give me an idea that if I regularly measured 1.6Gbps I could reasonably expect around 320Mbps or more.

    Iain Morris supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base