By using AWS re:Post, you agree to the Terms of Use
/AWS Global Accelerator/

Questions tagged with AWS Global Accelerator

Sort by most recent
  • 1
  • 90 / page

Browse through the questions and answers listed below or filter and sort to narrow down your results.

AWS Zone Apex challenge with older DNS server

The University that I work for has its own DNS servers. They are older and need an IP address to point to for the zone apex record. DNS migration is not an option. We have a site in AWS Amplify. We want to use the Amplify website for our root domain, "example.edu". RFC 1034 says that the zone apex must be an A Record, and not a CNAME. According to the article at https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/networking-and-content-delivery/solving-dns-zone-apex-challenges-with-third-party-dns-providers-using-aws/, there are three options: Route53, Elastic IPs with EC2 instances, and Global Accelerator. Since we are using AWS Amplify, we can't do the EC2 option. The Route53 option won't work with our old DNS server, which only works with IP addresses. The third option is to use AWS Global Accelerator and an Application Load Balancer (ALB) which does a 301 redirect to our Cloudfront distribution that has the custom SSL cert for our Amplify instance. When we point our DNS at the IP associated with AWS Global Accelerator, the redirect is working, but the URL is showing the Cloudfront distribution instead of example.com. I was told that whitelisting the Host header would fix this, but it just returns a 403 error saying that the request could not be satisfied. I am not sure if I am on the right track and need some adjustment somewhere, or if I need to do something completely different.
2
answers
0
votes
6
views
asked 4 months ago

Custom Routing setup help

I am trying to setup a Global Accelerator using Custom Routing, but running into issues. I keep getting the following error: **There are not enough accelerator ports remaining to support the requested endpoint.** After looking into it, this part of the documentation catches me off guard: _**Listener port ranges** - We recommend that you allocate listener port ranges linearly and make the ranges large enough to support the number of destination ports that you intend to have. That is, the number of ports you should allocate should be **at least the subnet size times the number of destination ports and protocols** (destination configurations) that you will have in the subnet._ This is what strikes me as odd, or possibly I am trying to set it up the wrong way. This is what I hope to achieve: - I have a number of game servers running in us-west-2, lets say 2 EC2 instances. Each of these instances will be hosting one or more game sessions. I have configured it so that server1 will use ports 1000-1999, and server2 will user ports 2000-2999. - In the client, I want to be able to point to the Global Accelerator IP address, using a port from 1000-2999, and have it end up at either server1 or server2 depending on which port number is used. So I set it up a custom accelerator, and add my first listener. **Listener port range**: 1000-1999. **Endpoint Groups**: One entry - us-west-2, Port range 1000-1999, Protocols TCP & UDP. **Endpoints**: One entry - Subnet <my-subnet-us-west-2a>, Allow traffic to specific destination socket addresses, IP Address <server1 - 172.31.123.123 >, Ports 1000-1999. After clicking save, I get the error: _There are not enough accelerator ports remaining to support the requested endpoint._ Am I going about this the wrong way entirely? I am a bit confused at the endpoint stage also, since I can just choose the entire subnet and leave it at 'Allow traffic' but what EC2 instance would it go to? Pick a random IP in that range and hope it maps to an active EC2 server? Or is this where the documentation note comes into play - in that it is doing something like port 1000-1999 will be mapped to the first valid IP in the subnet. 2000-2999 would be mapped to the second valid IP, and so on and so forth, therefore needing a huge number of initial listener port ranges.
1
answers
0
votes
6
views
asked a year ago

Global Accelerator is not decreasing file download times

Hi I have been benchmarking CloudFront (without cache) and Global Accelerator and I don't really understand results of the latter one. **Setup** # Web application in Ireland, delivering static content for testing (jpeg, js, html...) on EC2. # Application Load Balancer in front. **CloudFront test** I created a global CloudFront distribution without any caching in order to utilize private AWS backbone network. The goal was to decrease network latency between Ireland (server) and Japan/US (client). I compared file download times with and without CloudFront. I.e., direct connection from Japan/US to Ireland via public Internet vs. via CloudFront. Results were good, on average file (js, jpeg, html...) download duration was ~50 % via CloudFront vs. direct connection to ALB in Ireland. **Global Accelerator test** I performed equal test to CloudFront test but by using Global Accelerator and two static IP addresses. I expected to see similar improvements in download speeds but I was wrong. Duration of file download was just slightly decreased when downloading via either GA IP. In contrast, in Europe area it was slower to download files via GA than it was via direct connection to ALB. I checked traceroute resulsts from Japan and US to web app (Ireland/ALB) with and without GA. I did verify that with GA there are much less hops as it is jumping into AWS network via edge node. Do I have understood something wrong in GA, or why it is not improving download performance in way CloudFront does? Is it related to the implementation of CloudFront where it keeps TCP connections warm/open from edge to backend and GA is not doing that?
1
answers
0
votes
1
views
asked 3 years ago
  • 1
  • 90 / page