<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: SSO or Load Balancing for the 8089 Management Port in Security</title>
    <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Security/SSO-or-Load-Balancing-for-the-8089-Management-Port/m-p/170989#M5023</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;This would make sense if you're doing a lot of API (REST) calls against the SHC. You can load balance that in the same manner you are doing web (8000 or 443.) &lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:31:34 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>esix_splunk</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-08-14T06:31:34Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>SSO or Load Balancing for the 8089 Management Port</title>
      <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Security/SSO-or-Load-Balancing-for-the-8089-Management-Port/m-p/170988#M5022</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;I have a Splunk Search Head Cluster set up with a F5 LTM load balancer in front. This is set up for the Splunk web interface, but would it make sense to do the same for the management port? I don't do any authentication on the F5 LTM.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;I'm thinking it shouldn't be a problem as long a we're using sticky sessions and no authentication on the LTM since the 8089 Management Port doesn't honour the X-Remote-User header anyway so we'd have to log in never the less, but what would you suggest?&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;OL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Use Load Balancing from the LTM to the 3 search heads' Management Ports&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Direct requests to one of the search heads?&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/OL&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:22:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Security/SSO-or-Load-Balancing-for-the-8089-Management-Port/m-p/170988#M5022</guid>
      <dc:creator>mikaelbje</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-08-14T06:22:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SSO or Load Balancing for the 8089 Management Port</title>
      <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Security/SSO-or-Load-Balancing-for-the-8089-Management-Port/m-p/170989#M5023</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;This would make sense if you're doing a lot of API (REST) calls against the SHC. You can load balance that in the same manner you are doing web (8000 or 443.) &lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:31:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Security/SSO-or-Load-Balancing-for-the-8089-Management-Port/m-p/170989#M5023</guid>
      <dc:creator>esix_splunk</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-08-14T06:31:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SSO or Load Balancing for the 8089 Management Port</title>
      <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Security/SSO-or-Load-Balancing-for-the-8089-Management-Port/m-p/170990#M5024</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;So no pitfalls to be aware of? Nothing in small print stating that this shouldn't be done?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2015 07:02:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Security/SSO-or-Load-Balancing-for-the-8089-Management-Port/m-p/170990#M5024</guid>
      <dc:creator>mikaelbje</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-08-14T07:02:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

