Programatically determine public IP of a ECS server in Alibaba Cloud (ALIYUN) - ip

My application (C++) runs on an ECS server inside the Alibaba Cloud.
It needs to know its public address, but on the network only the private IPS is visible (similar to AWS, Google Cloud etc.)
Is there a way to automatically detect the public IP ?

There are several methods to determine your public IP address:
Use an external source that returns your IP address. A Google search will turn up lots of sources. AWS has one: http://checkip.amazonaws.com/. You can make an HTTP request to that endpoint and parse the result. Use a reliable vendor that just returns your IP address and not a bunch of formatted HTML statements.
Look up your public IP in your ECS instance's metadata. This link has more information: ECS Metadata
Use the Alibaba Cloud C++ SDK to call the ECS API Describe Instances Alibaba Cloud C++ SDK

Related

Mirror requests from cloudrun service to other cloudrun service

I'm currently working on a project where we are using Google Cloud. Within the Cloud we are using CloudRun to provide our services. One of these services is rather complex and has many different configuration options. To validate how these configurations affect the quality of the results and also to evaluate the quality of changes to the service, I would like to proceed as follows:
in addition to the existing service I deploy another instance of the service which contains the changes
I mirror all incoming requests and let both services process them, only the responses from the initial service are returned, but the responses from both services are stored
This allows me to create a detailed evaluation of the differences between the two services without having to provide the user with potentially worse responses.
For the implementation I have setup a NGINX which mirrors the requests. This is also deployed as a CloudRun service. This now accepts all requests and takes care of the authentication. The original service and the mirrored version have been configured in such a way that they can only be accessed internally and should therefore be accessed via a VPC network.
I have tried all possible combinations for the configuration of these parts but I always get 403 or 502 errors.
I have tried setting the NGINX service to the HTTP and HTTPS routes from the service, and I have tried all the VPC Connector settings. When I set the ingress from the service to ALL it works perfectly if I configure the service with HTTPS and port 443 in NGINX. As soon as I set the ingress to Internal I get errors with HTTPS -> 403 and with HTTP -> 502.
Does anyone have experience in this regard and can give me tips on how to solve this problem? Would be very grateful for any help.
If your Cloud Run service are internally accessible (ingress control set to internal only), you need to perform your request from your VPC.
Therefore, as you perfectly did, you plugged a serverless VPC connector on your NGINX service.
The set up is correct. Now, why it works when you route ALL the egress traffic and not only the private traffic to your VPC connector?
In fact, Cloud Run is a public resource, with a public URL, and even if you set the ingress to internal. This param say "the traffic must come to the VPC" and not say "I'm plugged to the VPC with a private IP".
So, to go to your VPC and access a public ressource (Your cloud run services), you need to route ALL the traffic to your VPC, even the public one.

Firebase Functions cannot connect to Azure SQL Database [duplicate]

I would like to develop a Google Cloud Function that will subscribe to file changes in a Google Cloud Storage bucket and upload the file to a third party FTP site. This FTP site requires allow-listed IP addresses of clients.
As such, it is possible to get a static IP address for Google Cloud Functions containers?
Update: This feature is now available in GCP https://cloud.google.com/functions/docs/networking/network-settings#associate-static-ip
First of all this is not an unreasonable request, don't get gaslighted. AWS Lambdas already support this feature and have for awhile now. If you're interested in this feature please star this feature request: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/112629904
Secondly, we arrived at a work-around which I also posted to that issue as well, maybe this will work for you too:
Setup a VPC Connector
Create a Cloud NAT on the VPC
Create a Proxy host which does not have a public IP, so the egress traffic is routed through Cloud NAT
Configure a Cloud Function which uses the VPC Connector, and which is configured to use the Proxy server for all outbound traffic
A caveat to this approach:
We wanted to put the proxy in a Managed Instance Group and behind a GCP Internal LB so that it would dynamically scale, but GCP Support has confirmed this is not possible because the GCP ILB basically allow-lists the subnet, and the Cloud Function CIDR is outside that subnet
I hope this is helpful.
Update: Just the other day, they announced an early-access beta for this exact feature!!
"Cloud Functions PM here. We actually have an early-access preview of this feature if you'd like to test it out.
Please complete this form so we can add you..."
The form can be found in the Issue linked above.
See answer below -- it took a number of years, but this is now supported.
https://cloud.google.com/functions/docs/networking/network-settings#associate-static-ip
For those wanting to associate cloud functions to a static IP address in order to whitelist the IP for an API or something of the sort I recommend checking out this step by step guide which helped me a lot:
https://dev.to/alvardev/gcp-cloud-functions-with-a-static-ip-3fe9 .
I also want to specify that this solution works for Google Cloud Functions and Firebase Functions (as it is based on GCP).
This functionality is now natively part of Google Cloud Functions (see here)
It's a two-step process according to the GCF docs:
Associating function egress with a static IP address In some cases,
you might want traffic originating from your function to be associated
with a static IP address. For example, this is useful if you are
calling an external service that only allows requests from whitelisted
IP addresses.
Route your function's egress through your VPC network. See the
previous section, Routing function egress through your VPC network.
Set up Cloud NAT and specify a static IP address. Follow the guides at
Specify subnet ranges for NAT and Specify IP addresses for NAT to set
up Cloud NAT for the subnet associated with your function's Serverless
VPC Access connector.
Refer to link below:
https://cloud.google.com/functions/docs/networking/network-settings#associate-static-ip
As per Google, the feature has been released check out the whole thread
https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/112629904
It's not possible to assign a static IP for Google Cloud Functions, as it's pretty much orthogonal to the nature of the architecture being 'serverless' i.e. allocate and deallocate servers on demand.
You can, however, leverage a HTTP proxy to achieve a similar effect. Setup a Google Compute Engine instance, assign it a static IP and install a proxy library such as https://www.npmjs.com/package/http-proxy. You can then route all your external API calls etc through this proxy.
However, this probably reduces scale and flexibility, but it might be a workaround.

Firebase Cloud Functions fixed IP [duplicate]

I would like to develop a Google Cloud Function that will subscribe to file changes in a Google Cloud Storage bucket and upload the file to a third party FTP site. This FTP site requires allow-listed IP addresses of clients.
As such, it is possible to get a static IP address for Google Cloud Functions containers?
Update: This feature is now available in GCP https://cloud.google.com/functions/docs/networking/network-settings#associate-static-ip
First of all this is not an unreasonable request, don't get gaslighted. AWS Lambdas already support this feature and have for awhile now. If you're interested in this feature please star this feature request: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/112629904
Secondly, we arrived at a work-around which I also posted to that issue as well, maybe this will work for you too:
Setup a VPC Connector
Create a Cloud NAT on the VPC
Create a Proxy host which does not have a public IP, so the egress traffic is routed through Cloud NAT
Configure a Cloud Function which uses the VPC Connector, and which is configured to use the Proxy server for all outbound traffic
A caveat to this approach:
We wanted to put the proxy in a Managed Instance Group and behind a GCP Internal LB so that it would dynamically scale, but GCP Support has confirmed this is not possible because the GCP ILB basically allow-lists the subnet, and the Cloud Function CIDR is outside that subnet
I hope this is helpful.
Update: Just the other day, they announced an early-access beta for this exact feature!!
"Cloud Functions PM here. We actually have an early-access preview of this feature if you'd like to test it out.
Please complete this form so we can add you..."
The form can be found in the Issue linked above.
See answer below -- it took a number of years, but this is now supported.
https://cloud.google.com/functions/docs/networking/network-settings#associate-static-ip
For those wanting to associate cloud functions to a static IP address in order to whitelist the IP for an API or something of the sort I recommend checking out this step by step guide which helped me a lot:
https://dev.to/alvardev/gcp-cloud-functions-with-a-static-ip-3fe9 .
I also want to specify that this solution works for Google Cloud Functions and Firebase Functions (as it is based on GCP).
This functionality is now natively part of Google Cloud Functions (see here)
It's a two-step process according to the GCF docs:
Associating function egress with a static IP address In some cases,
you might want traffic originating from your function to be associated
with a static IP address. For example, this is useful if you are
calling an external service that only allows requests from whitelisted
IP addresses.
Route your function's egress through your VPC network. See the
previous section, Routing function egress through your VPC network.
Set up Cloud NAT and specify a static IP address. Follow the guides at
Specify subnet ranges for NAT and Specify IP addresses for NAT to set
up Cloud NAT for the subnet associated with your function's Serverless
VPC Access connector.
Refer to link below:
https://cloud.google.com/functions/docs/networking/network-settings#associate-static-ip
As per Google, the feature has been released check out the whole thread
https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/112629904
It's not possible to assign a static IP for Google Cloud Functions, as it's pretty much orthogonal to the nature of the architecture being 'serverless' i.e. allocate and deallocate servers on demand.
You can, however, leverage a HTTP proxy to achieve a similar effect. Setup a Google Compute Engine instance, assign it a static IP and install a proxy library such as https://www.npmjs.com/package/http-proxy. You can then route all your external API calls etc through this proxy.
However, this probably reduces scale and flexibility, but it might be a workaround.

Can firebase functions make a http request to a Compute Engine instance within the same project without an external IP?

I need to make http requests from a firebase function to a gcloud virtual machine instance that has only internal IP address. Both are in the same project Id and in the same region, but I am not sure if they are in the same zone.

Azure: How to connect one cloud service with other in one virtual network

I want deploy backend WCF service in WebRole in Cloud Service 1 only with Internal Endpoint.
And deploy ASP.NET MVC frontend in WebRole in Cloud Service 2.
Is it possible to use Azure Virtual Netowork to call backend from frontend by Internal Endpoint ?
UPDATED: I am just trying build simple SOA architect like this:
Yes and No.
An internal endpoint essentially means that the role instance has been configured to accept traffic on a given port, but that port can NOT receive traffic from outside of the cloud service (hence it being "internal" to the cloud service). Internal endpoints are also not load balanced so you're going to need to "juggle" traffic management from the callers yourself.
Now here is where the issues arise, a virtual network allows you to securely traverse cloud service boundaries, letting a role instance in cloud service 1 call a role instance in cloud service 2. However, to do this, the calling role instance needs to know how to address the receiving instance. If they were in the same cloud service, they you can crawl the cloud service topology via the RoleEnvironment class. But this class only works for the cloud service its exists in, its not aware of a virtual network.
Now you could have the receiving role instance publish its FQDN to a shared area (say Azure table storage). However, a cloud service will only use its own internal DNS resolution (which only allows you to resolve short names in the same cloud service) unless you have configured the virtual network with a self-hosted DNS server.
So yes, you can do what you're trying to accomplish, but it does present some challenges. Given this, I'd have to argue if the convenience of separating for deployment enough to justify the additional complexity of the solution? If so, then I'd also look and see if perhaps there's a better way to interconnect the two services rather then direct calls (like a queue based pattern).
#BrentDaCodeMonkey makes some very valid points in his answer, so read that first.
I, personally, would not want to give up automatic discovery and scale via load balancing. My suggestion would be that you expose the WCF endpoint via an Azure Service Bus Relay endpoint. This will give you a "fixed" endpoint with which to communicate (solving the discovery issue) and infinite scalability because multiple servers can register and listen on the same Service Bus relay address. Additionally it introduces some basic security into the mix via shared key authentication when your web application(s) connect to your WCF services.
If you co-locate the Service Bus instance with your Cloud Services the overhead of the relay in the middle is totally negligible and, IMHO, worth it for the benefits explained above.

Resources