That explanation is noxious.

If enabled in the *default* initial matching physical ip:port host it
applies to all related hosts

If enabled in any secondary-non-default named vhost it is ignored.



On Feb 14, 2018 06:28, "Graham Leggett" <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote:

> On 14 Feb 2018, at 1:03 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The docs talk about connection based config, while ap_server_conf is
> really the main server config.
> The code should be improved to be based on c->baser_server config
> (with merging of RemoteIPProxyProtocol*), unless I'm missing something
> it seems (as of now) that the directives overwrite each other when
> used in vhost context (not only for name-based vhosts).
> So now (or post-backport) I think we should at least document the
> scope as being "server config" only, and follow up with
> "c->baser_server config" when possible (not a blocker for the first
> version).
>
>
> The docs explain the above here, which makes sense to me:
>
>     <p>While this directive may be specified in any virtual host, it is
>     important to understand that because the proxy protocol is connection
>     based and protocol agnostic, the enabling and disabling is actually
> based
>     on ip-address and port. This means that if you have multiple name-based
>     virtual hosts for the same host and port, and you enable it any one of
>     them, then it is enabled for all them (with that host and port). It
> also
>     means that if you attempt to enable the proxy protocol in one and
> disable
>     in the other, that won't work; in such a case the last one wins and a
>     notice will be logged indicating which setting was being
> overridden.</p>
>
> Regards,
> Graham
> —
>
>

Reply via email to