On 11/23/2011 2:01 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
3. so wrowe's suggestion implies we EITHER divorce "remote_ip" from
REMOTE_IP (confusing!) OR change the semantics of REMOTE_IP and
potentially break thousands of CGI/etc apps.
The later. We've already 'broken' thousands of CGI/etc apps throughout
the world, as many customers of mine either use a remote_ip style
solution or a much more trivial x-remote-ip header from their load
balancer to reroute it.
No reports of what grave ills this 'breakage' caused.
Care to offer one, any one?
