+1 for: Having the "real" client ip stored in r->* Some thought on name... I like r->client_ip but hold no strong opinions ;)
On Nov 23, 2011, at 6:02 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 23 Nov 2011, at 10:02 AM, Nick Kew wrote: > >> Wherein lies the problem. How confusing is it to have r->remote_ip >> and r->conn->remote_ip *and for them to be different*? >> >> These need distinct names to distinguish them! >> e.g. r->client_ip vs r->conn->remote_ip - obviously keep the latter! > > We already have remote_ip exploded as remote_addr, and then we take remote_ip > and put it into REMOTE_ADDR, adding yet another name to all of that will just > add more confusion :( > > Regards, > Graham > -- >
