[cisco-voip] CUCM - separating management traffic
Dennis Heim
Dennis.Heim at cdw.com
Thu Jan 19 21:38:49 EST 2012
At first when this thread started I thought maybe here could be a crazy off thread from our education counterparts. Having no control over your endpoint and networks definitely makes things more interesting. After listening to the thread I think there could definitely be some advantages, especially with the push to virtualization. You could take the ports that you do esxi management on and also run management for all the applications through those nics.
Other thoughts to this problem:
1)Put the ccmuser and ccmadmin pages on different ports. That way acl's could be written to control them
2)Have separate instances of tomcat for ccmuser and ccmadmin
I have never run into a real problem with everything using a single IP/web server. I can definitely see the concern from a security and control perspective. This discussion brings back memories of old MPX (meetingplace express), how the http/web traffic used one port and the rtp/audio used another port.
Dennis Heim
Senior Engineer (Unified Communications)
CDW Advanced Technology Services
10610 9th Place
Bellevue, WA 98004
425.310.5299 Single Number Reach (WA)
317.569.4255 Single Number Reach (IN)
317.569.4201 Fax
dennis.heim at cdw.com<mailto:dennis.heim at cdw.com>
cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/<http://www.cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/>
From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Scott Voll
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 2:49 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi
Cc: FrogOnDSCP46EF; cisco-voip voyp list
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM - separating management traffic
proxy vs reverse proxy are apples vs oranges. two different animals.
Scott
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>> wrote:
i _think_ there's a difference between a proxy and a reverse proxy
a proxy is something that you program your browser with and all requests go through that proxy and there's no special programming required on the proxy side. much more canned i believe.
a reverse proxy allows you to contact a website without having to make changes on the client side, but the proxy has to be configured to do all the re-writing.
honestly, i'm a newbie to this. so i could be off my rocker.
---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
________________________________
From: "Wes Sisk" <wsisk at cisco.com<mailto:wsisk at cisco.com>>
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>>
Cc: "FrogOnDSCP46EF" <ciscoboy2006 at gmail.com<mailto:ciscoboy2006 at gmail.com>>, "cisco-voip voyp list" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>>, "Matthew Saskin" <msaskin at gmail.com<mailto:msaskin at gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 4:43:00 PM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM - separating management traffic
I'll plead ignorance - why is a special proxy required? A standard https proxy will not work?
/wes
On Jan 19, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi wrote:
while the reverse proxy has served us well, we did have to find someone to build and maintain this for us. also, not everything will work with a reverse proxy, especially any protocol that builds the IP address into the code and/or requires direct access to the host client. media master bar comes to mind.
---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
________________________________
From: "Wes Sisk" <wsisk at cisco.com<mailto:wsisk at cisco.com>>
To: "Matthew Saskin" <msaskin at gmail.com<mailto:msaskin at gmail.com>>
Cc: "FrogOnDSCP46EF" <ciscoboy2006 at gmail.com<mailto:ciscoboy2006 at gmail.com>>, "cisco-voip voyp list" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:00:52 PM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM - separating management traffic
out of band management is usually delivered via IPKVM either as external hardware or utilizing iLO or the IBM equivalent which escapes me at the moment.
To protect the administrative interfaces (web and ssh) block traffic from hostile environments to these on a per port basis.
The only overlap is access to ccmuser vs. (ccmadmin/ccmservice/iptplatform) as all are web services. Because they utilize https now Lelio is spot on that a front end proxy is required.
The general response is that there are devices that do this and very commonly do it better than any possible internal implementation. With that precondition why add the additional complexity to the core product?
We've seen several times, even here on cisco-voip, where an ASA or external box is required for true policing. Security folks present a very sound case for this.
Regards,
Wes
On Jan 19, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Matthew Saskin wrote:
I knew Lelio was going to chime in ;)
It's an interesting note that while none of my financial customers have done this, or use features like secure voice, I have one Edu whose policy is "everything on the network must be encrypted, end of story". The net of this is vastly more time spent troubleshooting security/encryption issues, and a significant extra workload in terms of additional servers/development work to "Secure" things that aren't secured by their nature (eg; ODBC access to UCCX via informix drivers. While ODBC can be secured/encrypted, the informix connectivity to UCCX can't be encrypted)
I digress. While I agree with Lelio that it's not a difficult thing for Cisco to implement, I've yet to see the real-world call for it barring very specific circumstances...and we all know the reality, until it's clamored for by a collective of customers spending 10's of millions of dollars, it's not likely to happen.
-matthew
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com<mailto:svoll.voip at gmail.com>> wrote:
except Lelio ;-)
Scott
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Matthew Saskin <msaskin at gmail.com<mailto:msaskin at gmail.com>> wrote:
Who knows? It's not something that I've ever heard of on the roadmap from CIsco. Technically speaking, I can't imagine it would be terribly difficult to have the various CCM services operate on one interface/IP and the management (HTTP/HTTPS) on another address, but that's just me thinking about it.
Speaking realistically, I've never seen anyone care enough to implement ACL's or application layer filtering to "protect" the admin interface in the real world.
-matthew
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:21 AM, FrogOnDSCP46EF <ciscoboy2006 at gmail.com<mailto:ciscoboy2006 at gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks Mathew. Would this be difficult to do? Given Cisco has inhouse UC developers.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Matthew Saskin <msaskin at gmail.com<mailto:msaskin at gmail.com>> wrote:
You can't. Virtual or physical, CUCM only operates using a single interface and single IP address. Closest you're going to get is firewall rules to disallow certain access based on source, and that may not even work as things like authentication URL's are on the same IP/port on the CUCM - you'd have to do some application layer filtering of URL's.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:21 AM, FrogOnDSCP46EF <ciscoboy2006 at gmail.com<mailto:ciscoboy2006 at gmail.com>> wrote:
Have anyone figured out yet how to separate CUCM management in VMware or physical deployment?
It's kind of weird, Cisco's all deployment templates are still putting mgmt and traffic packets on the same eth0 interface.
I bet this is in Cisco's todo list.
thanks
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
--
Smile, you'll save someone else's day!
Frog
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20120120/7651fa56/attachment.html>
More information about the cisco-voip
mailing list