[isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC Communications and ISA
- From: "Thomas W Shinder" <tshinder@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:19:21 -0500
Hey! What up with that? ;))
Thomas W Shinder, M.D.
Site: www.isaserver.org
Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/
Book: http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7
MVP -- ISA Firewalls
> -----Original Message-----
> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thor
> (Hammer of God)
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:04 PM
> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC Communications and ISA
>
> Now THAT was funny-- the shirt add when I looked up "hork"
> (even though I
> totally knew what it meant) was this:
>
> http://www.bustedtees.com/shirt/tom/male
>
> Lol.
>
>
> t
>
>
> On 8/15/06 6:52 PM, "Thomas W Shinder" <tshinder@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> spoketh to
> all:
>
> > Aha, OK, borking is quite different from horking:
> >
> > http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=borked
> >
> > Thomas W Shinder, M.D.
> > Site: www.isaserver.org
> > Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/
> > Book: http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7
> > MVP -- ISA Firewalls
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:41 PM
> >> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
> Communications and ISA
> >>
> >> There is - this was a clear case of borking.
> >> That's a much more complex (and effective) form of f#$%$ing
> >> up your system.
> >>
> >> -------------------------------------------------------
> >> Jim Harrison
> >> MCP(NT4, W2K), A+, Network+, PCG
> >> http://isaserver.org/Jim_Harrison/
> >> http://isatools.org
> >> Read the help / books / articles!
> >> -------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas W Shinder
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 18:45
> >> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
> Communications and ISA
> >>
> >> I figured there was an "anti-hork" feature in the ISA CSS
> >> replication engine ;)
> >>
> >> Thomas W Shinder, M.D.
> >> Site: www.isaserver.org
> >> Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/
> >> Book: http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7
> >> MVP -- ISA Firewalls
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:34 PM
> >>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
> >> Communications and ISA
> >>>
> >>> Replication is a wonderful thing...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -------------------------------------------------------
> >>> Jim Harrison
> >>> MCP(NT4, W2K), A+, Network+, PCG
> >>> http://isaserver.org/Jim_Harrison/
> >>> http://isatools.org
> >>> Read the help / books / articles!
> >>> -------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas
> W Shinder
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 18:10
> >>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
> >> Communications and ISA
> >>>
> >>> Hey, wait a minute. There should be multiple CSSs, so did
> >> the storage
> >>> get horked on all of them?
> >>>
> >>> Thomas W Shinder, M.D.
> >>> Site: www.isaserver.org
> >>> Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/
> >>> Book: http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7
> >>> MVP -- ISA Firewalls
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 7:25 PM
> >>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
> >>> Communications and ISA
> >>>>
> >>>> Yep - somehow he managed to completely bork his storage.
> >>>> We're almost to the point of a complete rebuild <sigh>.
> >>>> I'm actually doing a registry compare to see if I can sort
> >>> out what he
> >>>> broke.
> >>>>
> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> Jim Harrison
> >>>> MCP(NT4, W2K), A+, Network+, PCG
> >>>> http://isaserver.org/Jim_Harrison/
> >>>> http://isatools.org
> >>>> Read the help / books / articles!
> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas
> >> W Shinder
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 17:20
> >>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
> >>> Communications and ISA
> >>>>
> >>>> Is it a real problem, and dealing with jughead the
> >> enterprise admin?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thomas W Shinder, M.D.
> >>>> Site: www.isaserver.org
> >>>> Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/
> >>>> Book: http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7
> >>>> MVP -- ISA Firewalls
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 6:58 PM
> >>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
> >>>> Communications and ISA
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not yet - been critsitting between postings.
> >>>>> ..or the other way 'round...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> Jim Harrison
> >>>>> MCP(NT4, W2K), A+, Network+, PCG
> >>>>> http://isaserver.org/Jim_Harrison/
> >>>>> http://isatools.org
> >>>>> Read the help / books / articles!
> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Jones
> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 14:44
> >>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
> >>>> Communications and ISA
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jim,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any luck with this?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
> >>>>> Sent: 14 August 2006 00:52
> >>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
> >>>> Communications and ISA
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Absotively.
> >>>>> Send it on.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Jones
> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 3:08 PM
> >>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
> >>>> Communications and ISA
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yeah I know, have the same issues when looking at closed
> >>> betas with
> >>>>> cool features which could really help out some of my
> >>>> customers. Shame
> >>>>> the NDA doesn't extend to MS partners though...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PSS dude said that all KB articles related to a RPC
> >>> problems where
> >>>>> based upon using a large number of clients. He also said
> >>>> that as this
> >>>>> issue was happening before the DR problems I couldn't
> >> include it
> >>>>> within the DR call and I would have to log another
> >>> call...great! :-(
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If I give you the SRQ number, is there any chance you could
> >>>> point him
> >>>>> in the right direction? Pretty please :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
> >>>>> Sent: 13 August 2006 22:47
> >>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
> >>>> Communications and ISA
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I wish I could say more, but I'm bound by NDA...
> >>>>> The KB is on its way out the door and your PSS dewd need
> >>>> only do a bit
> >>>>> of research.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> Jim Harrison
> >>>>> MCP(NT4, W2K), A+, Network+, PCG
> >>>>> http://isaserver.org/Jim_Harrison/
> >>>>> http://isatools.org
> >>>>> Read the help / books / articles!
> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Jones
> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 14:41
> >>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
> >>>> Communications and ISA
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Whilst PSS logging a call to get some feedback on the DR
> >>>> issues I've
> >>>>> had with ISA, I mentioned this "new KB artilce"
> >>>>> and the chap i was dealing with was pretty clueless about
> >>>> it (amongst
> >>>>> other things!).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are really starting to become a tease with this
> >>> artitcle, as it
> >>>>> may solve two problems now! :-P
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
> >>>>> Sent: 13 August 2006 19:15
> >>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
> >>>> Communications and ISA
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not insinuating anything of the sort...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Keep your eyes open for that KB that deals in Outlook MAPI
> >>>>> connections; I bet it'll help you out here, too.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Jones
> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 2:22 AM
> >>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
> >>>> Communications and ISA
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All relationships are route = I know intradomain is only
> >>> supported
> >>>>> this way - I'm not a complete newb at this ;-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Complicated setup I know, but pretty much 99% working apart
> >>>> from this
> >>>>> issue and teh RPC filter failings (other post)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tried with and without strict RPC - no dice, same issues...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Internet FW is hardware appliance (dumb packet filter)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
> >>>>> Sent: 13 August 2006 01:43
> >>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
> >>>> Communications and ISA
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ah, yes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> While this is a desirable design, it's also a very
> >> difficult one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What are the network relationships between the networks?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For instance:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ExchFE ßà Exch BE == Route
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Have you disabled Strict RPC on the relevant rules?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> NAT ain't happenin' FWIW...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What's the "Internet FW"?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Jones
> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 3:18 PM
> >>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
> >>>> Communications and ISA
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
> >>>>> Sent: 12 August 2006 22:41
> >>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
> >>>> Communications and ISA
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maybe a napkin drawing, then?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't understand how your BE needs specific rules unless its
> >>>>> separated from the DC by ISA?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Jones
> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 2:19 PM
> >>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
> >>>> Communications and ISA
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, not confused, and realise the difference between
> >> RPC/HTTP and
> >>>>> MAPI. I guess I am obviously not explaining myself very
> >>> well with a
> >>>>> complex environment and the problem very specific.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> AS such, any NSPI connections are strictly the problem of
> >>>>> the BE server.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not in this scenario, as the BE is in an ISA protected network
> >>>>> seperated from the DCs and FEs. The rule that allows
> >> access from
> >>>>> BE=>DCs is using RPC (All interfaces) and yet ISA is
> >>>> blocking traffic
> >>>>> from the NSPI proxy when using RPC/HTTP.
> >>>>> All other RPC traffic from BE=>DCs is working as expected
> >>>> and ISA is
> >>>>> detecting the RPC dynamic ports correctly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If I allow All outbound protocols from BE=>DCs the NSPI
> >>> proxy works
> >>>>> and I see ports 1025. 1026 etc being used. It seems as
> >> if ISA is
> >>>>> missing the intitial RPC negations between the NSPI proxy
> >>>> and DCs and
> >>>>> hence blocks all dynamic ports after 135 is contacted.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maybe I need to provide some diagrams and/or better
> >>> desacirptions...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> JJ
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
> >>>>> Sent: 12 August 2006 16:55
> >>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
> >>>> Communications and ISA
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think you're confused; RPC/HTTP doesn't use MAPI; it's
> >>>> "just" HTTP
> >>>>> traffic.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> AS such, any NSPI connections are strictly the problem
> >> of the BE
> >>>>> server.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The only way ISA handles RPC traffic is via Exchange RPC or
> >>>> RPC (All
> >>>>> interfaces) rules.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Jones
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 5:13 PM
> >>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> Subject: [isapros] Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
> >> Communications and ISA
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bit of a shot in the dark, as this is a strange issue,
> >> but hoping
> >>>>> someone can confirm what I am seeing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Basically, I have a pretty secure Exchange environment
> >>> whereby both
> >>>>> Exchange FE's and BE's are on ISA protected perimeter
> >>> networks with
> >>>>> the external network connected to the 'traditional LAN'
> >>>> e.g., ISA is
> >>>>> acting as a multinetwork internal firewall to
> >>> specifically protect
> >>>>> Exchange from the internal network (all routed
> >>>> relationships). In this
> >>>>> scenario, ISA is controlling all communications to and from
> >>>> Exchange
> >>>>> and all email client access is published using web
> >> publishing or
> >>>>> secure RPC publishing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Up until now everything has been working pretty well (apart
> >>>> from the
> >>>>> other RPC filter issues in my other posts!) but we have
> >>>> come across a
> >>>>> specific issue when using RPC/HTTP as follows:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The problem seems to lie with the fact that the
> >> back-end Exchange
> >>>>> server is talking to the GCs and ISA is seeing these
> >>> connections as
> >>>>> newly initiated connections (e.g. non RPC) as opposed to
> >>> detecting
> >>>>> them as dynamic ports which have been defined as part
> >> of the RPC
> >>>>> handshake process. Therefore, ISA is dropping these
> >>> connections and
> >>>>> prevents the back-end server from communicating with the GCs,
> >>>>> specifically for RPC/HTTP (e.g. when using the NSPI proxy).
> >>>> All other
> >>>>> communications which relate to RPC and ISA's ability to
> >>>> detect dynamic
> >>>>> RPC ports is being done successfully (e.g.
> >>>>> MAPI communications from Outlook to Exchange). It looks
> >>> to me as if
> >>>>> the back-end Exchange server is initiating it own
> >>> connections which
> >>>>> ISA sees as communications independent of RPC. The issue
> >>>> only appears
> >>>>> to arise when the back-end servers proxy the client AD
> >>>> communication
> >>>>> (e.g. when using the NSPI proxy), as is the case with RPC/HTTP,
> >>>>> because Outlook clients have no access to the GCs from
> >>> the Internet.
> >>>>> For standard MAPI clients, they are simply given a
> >>> referral to the
> >>>>> actual GCs which they communicate with directly, independent of
> >>>>> Exchange (e.g. not using NSPI proxy).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Does this sounds familiar? Is Exchange doing something
> >>>> weird here or
> >>>>> is ISA missing the RPC dynamic port negotiations?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Looking at the ISA logs, I see ports 1025, 1027, 1030 etc.
> >>>>> being used by the NSPI proxy which I am pretty sure are
> >>> going to be
> >>>>> the kind of ports dynamic RPC would use. If I add the
> >>>> ephemeral ports
> >>>>> (1024-65535) to the existing BE=>GC rule everything work
> >>>> just fine. If
> >>>>> I limit ports to standard intradomain protocols including
> >>> RPC then
> >>>>> everything works apart from RPC/HTTP and I start seeing
> >>> ports 1025,
> >>>>> 1027 etc.
> >>>>> being denied by ISA as unidentified traffic.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Answers on a postcard! ;-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers
> >>>>>
> >>>>> JJ
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
