> "Iñaki Baz Castillo" <[email protected]> wrote > in message news:[email protected]... > El Jueves, 22 de Octubre de 2009, Eric B. escribió: > > "Jacques Caron" <[email protected]> wrote in > > message > > news:[email protected]... > > > > > At 16:08 22/10/2009, Eric B. wrote: > > >>1) There is no way to know the exact sequence of the headers. > > > > > > As already pointed out by Dave, the HTTP RFC explicitly says that > > > header: a > > > header: b > > > > > > is exactly equivalent to: > > > header: a,b > > > > > > So the sequence is perfectly defined. > > > > Yes, but can we be sure that subsequent proxies/lbs will always append > > to > > the final header in the list? I don't have Squid or anything else > > installed, so am not sure of it, but am going on assumption that they > > probably just grab the first XFF that they find. > > > > Any confirmation (or rejection) of this behaviour would be appreciated. > > Since there is no a real standard for this, most probably most of the > proxy do > a unexpected behavior when adding X-Forwarded-For having the requests > already > such a header.
I agree. Which is why I would vote for Pound to keep in line with the other major players out there, like Squid, and append the source IP to the XFF header as opposed to adding a new header every time. Eric -- To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to [email protected]. Please contact [email protected] for questions.
