Microsoft Azure Application Gateway pros and cons

The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs.

It has a filter available, although we are not currently using it because it is not part of our requirements. But it is a good option and when it becomes part of our requirements we will definitely use it.

The health probe is pretty good for your backend health. It tells you whether it's communicating and talking to the endpoint correctly. It is quite useful.

The solution is easy to set up.

The pricing is quite good.

The most valuable feature is WAF.

It does an excellent job of load balancing.

WAF feature replicates the firewall.

Good customization; able to report and take action on alerts.

Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing.

The security of the product could be adjusted.

It takes a lot of time for a certificate to update in the system. That is a huge drawback, affecting the load-balancing side. And when there are changes to the load balancing, it affects the end-user.

It is a bit tricky to configure. You've got to have a very specific format to configure it. They should make it a little bit easier to configure. Mapping the certificates into it isn't easy, and it could be better. Currently, you've to write a bit of automation to pull certificates directly to HTTPS.

The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible.

The monitoring on the solution could be better.

It could be more stable, and support could be better. It would also be better if they offered more features. For example, it lacks security features. Before we used another English solution, and we realized that some of the rules were not set up correctly and passed through the Application Gateway's English controllers. But the problem, in this case, is if you send ten rules, for example, six rules hit some issues. IP address blocking could be better. The rules, for example, don't work properly. If you have one issue, one rule or another rule will not work. This sounds like total madness to me.

The increased security that we are considering is because of some of the things that the security team has brought to our attention. They have pointed out that we would most likely require a better web application firewall than Azure Application Gateway.

Scalability can be an issue.

Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM.

One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS.