SharePoint Redirect To New Path Using Public Name

Question

Hello,&nbsp;I'm trying to use the following code to redirect public traffic over a secure link (https://) to a SharePoint 2013 server that's listening on port "33230" at "/sites/BI/". I did this before with a SharePoint 2010 server listening on port "80" at "/" without a problem, but this time I'm just getting text from the site in one long column instead of text on top of graphics with the proper formatting (Browsers don't make a difference and I have the same problem with-in the company unless I access the server with the server name in the URL with-in our company and then it looks fine). Firewall has port 80 and 443 open to accept incoming connections to the Virtual IP. Here's the iRule:&nbsp;    "dashboards.domain.com" {
            switch [TCP::local_port] {
                80 { HTTP::redirect "https://[HTTP::host]/sites/BI/" }
                443 {
                     if { [HTTP::uri] != "/sites/BI/" } {
                          HTTP::redirect "https://[HTTP::host]/sites/BI/"
             }
                     pool SharePoint_Dashboards_pool
                }
             }
     }I have the following SharePoint Alternate Access Mappings setup in this order:&nbsp;http://SERVER[Default]http://SERVER&nbsp;http://SERVER:33230[Default]http://SERVER:33230&nbsp;https://dashboards.domain.com:33230[Internet]https://dashboards.domain.com:33230&nbsp;http://dashboards.domain.com:33230[Internet]https://dashboards.domain.com:33230&nbsp;Thanks, Brian&nbsp;

nitass · Answer

I'm trying to use the following code to redirect public traffic over a secure link (https://) to a SharePoint 2013 server that's listening on port "33230" at "/sites/BI/".&nbsp;

if you want to rewrite uri, you should use HTTP::uri rather than HTTP::redirect.&nbsp;
Redirects, Rewrites and App Transfers via iRules by Colin Walker (Invisible Rewrite section)&nbsp;
https://devcentral.f5.com/articles/redirects-rewrites-and-app-transfers-via-irules.UuNKt7QRUdU&nbsp;

mikeshimkus_111 · Answer

Hi Brian, I'm a bit confused.  The SharePoint web app is listening on port 33230, but I don't see port 33230 in your switch statement or redirect location.  
I'm not sure that if statements nested inside switch statements work very well.  Also, it's true that HTTP::uri will change the URI before it's sent to the server, but the browser doesn't get informed of that, which can cause issues.  You could use HTTP::respond in this way to accomplish the same:
when HTTP_REQUEST  {
    if { [string tolower [HTTP::host]] contains "dashboards.domain.com" &amp;&amp; [HTTP::uri] equals "/" }  {
        HTTP::respond 302 Location "https://dashboards.domain.com:33230/sites/BI"
    }
}

I'm curious about what happens when you point dashboards.domain.com at one of your server IPs, rather than the virtual server.  Same result?
Mike

briang_11931 · Answer

Thanks.  I have the pool member listening on port 33230.  Could I accept connections on BIG-IP at port 443 and then pass them on to 33230 without having port 33230 part of the URL?  Oddly I had it working without the port as part of the URL, but the graphics never appeared in the browser!

I actually have some nested switching setup now as I want to handle connections on port 80 and redirect to https:// with the URI, but connections can also come in to port 443 without the URI and I redirect to https:// with the URI.  Can I use this without specifying port 33230?  Here's the code:

when HTTP_REQUEST {
     switch -glob [getfield [HTTP::host] ":" 2] {
          "80" { HTTP::redirect "https://[HTTP::host]/sites/BI/" }
          "443" {
                    switch -glob [string tolower [HTTP::uri]] {
                         "/sites/bi/" { pool SharePoint_Dashboards_pool }
                         "/" { HTTP::redirect "https://[HTTP::host]/sites/BI/" }
                    }
          }
     }
}

Finally, what's the difference performance-wise and behind-the-scenes using "HTTP::redirect" vs "HTTP::respond 301" or "HTTP::respond 302".  I thought about using one of the later two instead, but "HTTP::redirect" seems to be working fine.  And is there a case where "HTTP::redirect" is preferred-to-be-used?  Is "HTTP::redirect" only meant for switching between "http://" and "https://" and the like protocols?  Because that's how I first learned to use it in class.

briang_11931 · Answer

Oh, and do you also know if there's a sway to switch based on protocol (i.e. http:// or https://) instead of port?  I researched this yesterday, but I didn't find anything.

mikeshimkus_111 · Answer

The port number is usually not going to be included in HTTP::host for 80/443 requests. And, if this virtual server is using a client SSL profile, then your redirect based on the port 80 case will never get triggered.  &nbsp;
You'll need to create a virtual server at port 80 using the same IP address, and apply the _sys_https_redirect iRule to it.  That will redirect all http:// unencrypted connections to your SSL virtual server, which should have something similar to the rule I posted above attached to it.&nbsp;
IIRC, HTTP::redirect is basically the same as "HTTP::respond 302 Location: ".  HTTP::respond gives you more control if you want to include other headers, cookies, etc with your response.&nbsp;
I am not sure that using the custom port number for your pool members will work, because SharePoint is expecting a certain URL scheme for requests to a particular zone.  Ports 443 and 33230 would need to have their own zones in Alternate Access Mappings. I have never tried that...you may want to experiment a bit with that.&nbsp;

Forum Discussion

SharePoint Redirect To New Path Using Public Name

7 Replies

Recent Discussions

ASM instance creation

[ASM] - what is "Browser Challange file" ?

[ASM] - HTML5 Cross-Domain Request Enforcement - CLI command

Reverse Proxy Not Behaving

Stable Firmware for F5

Related Content

Enriching AFM with public domain Threat Intelligence

F5 High Availability - Public Cloud Guidance

APM Sharepoint authentication

Public IP address display

F5 BIG-IP SSLO in public cloud: AWS inbound L3 use case