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 > — > >
