Jasper,
thanks a lot for this follow up. So you are actually doing NAT and my
scenario was not too wrong. And apparently a different virtual port
references a different document. So Oleg, this means there effectively
*is* such a feature as a port and we should therefore provide access to
it. I'll open a new issue report in a minute.
Cheers
Ortwin Glück
Jasper van Zandbeek wrote:
Here's the situation for which we want to use virtual port numbers:
We use a load balancer that connects to the HTTP server and the HTTP
server connects to the application server. We use port translation in
our load balancer. So when e.g. a client connects to 90 of the load
balancer, the load balancer connects to port 100 of the HTTP server.
The load balancer doesn't change the Host request header, so in the
host request header is still the original virtual host name and port,
in this case port 90. For this reason, the virtual hosts of the HTTP
server and application server are configured based on the external
port numbers, so in this case port 90.
For test purposes, we sometimes want to connect directly to the HTTP
server or the application server, bypassing the load balancer. To do
this, we need to connect to the same port as the load balancer would,
in this example port 100, but the host header of this request should
be the same as if the request would go through the load balancer, so
in this example port 90, because the HTTP server and application
server's virtual hosts are configured for this port.
Jasper
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
