m-kratochvil
commented
8 months ago Further investigation on our side shows that the declaration fails when the pool member is set to "adminState": "disable" and "priorityGroup": 1, is added to the declaration. It could either be only one of these two things, or both that cause the failure, we don't know that yet.
Here is the last successful declaration and the first one that fails, so you can do a diff.
{
"action": "deploy",
"class": "AS3",
"declaration": {
"class": "ADC",
"id": "urn:uuid:5e443f46-1dc0-43ef-afc4-c3cd752e46ad",
"label": "F5 BigIP Provider",
"net_f4db9dbe_1d85_4aa4_84dd_3aea727aaa24": {
"class": "Tenant",
"defaultRouteDomain": 3063,
"label": "project_7243f3f80a99434292d6766069d3961a",
"lb_9605e3e2-1be0-44d4-beee-9362e53c54f7": {
"class": "Application",
"label": "9605e3e2-1be0-44d4-beee-9362e53c54f7",
"listener_7ea1d149-039a-4c54-a126-9ada3b60964a": {
"class": "Service_L4",
"iRules": [],
"label": "lb_member_listener1_member-436580696",
"maxConnections": 200,
"persistenceMethods": [],
"policyEndpoint": [],
"pool": "pool_040d6597-720a-4676-8954-fddfb56df4b5",
"profileL4": {
"bigip": "/Common/fastL4_profile"
},
"snat": "self",
"virtualAddresses": [
"10.1.1.59"
],
"virtualPort": 8000
},
"pool_040d6597-720a-4676-8954-fddfb56df4b5": {
"class": "Pool",
"label": "lb_member_pool1_member-698855247",
"loadBalancingMode": "ratio-member",
"members": [
{
"adminState": "enable",
"enable": true,
"ratio": 20,
"remark": "39e9668c-2483-41ca-bfd6-73fea4609136",
"serverAddresses": [
"192.0.2.1"
],
"servicePort": 80
}
],
"remark": "lb_member_pool1_member-698855247"
},
"template": "generic"
}
},
"schemaVersion": "3.19.0",
"updateMode": "selective"
},
"historyLimit": 2,
"logLevel": "warning",
"persist": false,
"trace": false
}[
{
"code": 200,
"declarationId": "urn:uuid:5e443f46-1dc0-43ef-afc4-c3cd752e46ad",
"host": "localhost",
"lineCount": 22,
"message": "success",
"runTime": 1520,
"tenant": "net_f4db9dbe_1d85_4aa4_84dd_3aea727aaa24"
}
]
{
"action": "deploy",
"class": "AS3",
"declaration": {
"class": "ADC",
"id": "urn:uuid:e806dee3-7f35-4d8f-8a68-4e8d5f34a960",
"label": "F5 BigIP Provider",
"net_f4db9dbe_1d85_4aa4_84dd_3aea727aaa24": {
"class": "Tenant",
"defaultRouteDomain": 3063,
"label": "project_7243f3f80a99434292d6766069d3961a",
"lb_9605e3e2-1be0-44d4-beee-9362e53c54f7": {
"class": "Application",
"label": "9605e3e2-1be0-44d4-beee-9362e53c54f7",
"listener_7ea1d149-039a-4c54-a126-9ada3b60964a": {
"class": "Service_L4",
"iRules": [],
"label": "lb_member_listener1_member-436580696",
"maxConnections": 200,
"persistenceMethods": [],
"policyEndpoint": [],
"pool": "pool_040d6597-720a-4676-8954-fddfb56df4b5",
"profileL4": {
"bigip": "/Common/fastL4_profile"
},
"snat": "self",
"virtualAddresses": [
"10.1.1.59"
],
"virtualPort": 8000
},
"pool_040d6597-720a-4676-8954-fddfb56df4b5": {
"class": "Pool",
"label": "lb_member_pool1_member-698855247",
"loadBalancingMode": "ratio-member",
"members": [
{
"adminState": "disable",
"enable": true,
"priorityGroup": 1,
"ratio": 20,
"remark": "39e9668c-2483-41ca-bfd6-73fea4609136",
"serverAddresses": [
"192.0.2.1"
],
"servicePort": 80
}
],
"remark": "lb_member_pool1_member-698855247"
},
"template": "generic"
}
},
"schemaVersion": "3.19.0",
"updateMode": "selective"
},
"historyLimit": 2,
"logLevel": "warning",
"persist": false,
"trace": false
}[
{
"code": 422,
"declarationId": "urn:uuid:e806dee3-7f35-4d8f-8a68-4e8d5f34a960",
"host": "localhost",
"message": "declaration failed",
"response": "01020036:3: The requested Pool Member (/net_f4db9dbe_1d85_4aa4_84dd_3aea727aaa24/lb_9605e3e2-1be0-44d4-beee-9362e53c54f7/pool_040d6597-720a-4676-8954-fddfb56df4b5 /net_f4db9dbe_1d85_4aa4_84dd_3aea727aaa24/192.0.2.1%3063 80) was not found.",
"runTime": 1925,
"tenant": "net_f4db9dbe_1d85_4aa4_84dd_3aea727aaa24"
}
]
mbreton1
Note - this is potentially a duplicate to #805 but the symptoms are not exactly the same, so I'm opening this separately. Feel free to close as duplicate if indeed it is.
Environment
Application Services Version:
Later upgraded to:
BIG-IP Version:
Summary
Few days after upgrade from 3.36 to 3.49 our automated tests started to fail. There are two types of failures we see, all related to pool members:
The second error BTW matches the one reported in the linked issue #805. I have so far only investigated into the first error (pool member not found), and what I see is that the pool member does exist in the Big-IP TMOS config prior to the declaration being submitted (the declaration changes the pool member status to "disabled"), so it should normally be updated and I'm out of ideas why the declaration fails. For now I'm focusing on that first error only, as I believe the second one is most likely related to the same underlying issue. I can reproduce this "manually", outside of our testing platform.
Steps To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:
Have a pool member in the TMOS configuration:
Submit the following declaration:
Observe the following error response:
Expected Behavior
The pool member should be updated, as it exists on the Big-IP.
Actual Behavior
The declaration fails with error "Pool member not found".