On 12/13/2011 9:06 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Dec 13, 2011, at 5:33 PM, Graham Leggett wrote: >> On 14 Dec 2011, at 12:50 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: >>> On 12 Dec 2011, at 11:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >>> >>>> I have a frustrating update, which we need to take into consideration for >>>> the whole remote_ip-related resolution. From the httpd-ng workgroup... >>> >>> This makes sense, we're an HTTP server, lets stick to RFC related terms. >> >> Done in r 1214022. > > Huh, I was wondring what Bill was talking about ... I couldn't remember any > discussion that had reversed the meaning, and now I know why. > > The IP address received by the server interface when we are acting as a > reverse proxy is not necessarily the IP address of the user agent. It could > just as easily be the IP address of an ISP proxy, a corporate firewall, > or a dozen other client-side intermediaries that are not the user agent. > Hence, it is just a client.
That is EXACTLY our understanding. The immediate connection comes from "a client". Not the end node asking for the data, but our immediate client which is a BigIP balancer or a telco cell browser proxy or anything else which you mention. "the user agent" is not "just a client", but the originator of the request. Are we on the same page now?
