El Jueves, 22 de Octubre de 2009, Jacques Caron escribió: > >The problem is that X-Forwarded-For definitios is exactly the opposite. > > No. Whatever happens, the equivalence is valid. Then there is the > question of what order should you read that in (i.e. did the request > go through a first and then b, or the opposite), which is de facto > defined as "a then b",
> probably for consistency with the Via header which works the same. It's curious, in SIP protocol (more or less based on HTTP) all the headers (including Via header) work in the opposite way, this is: - A client sends a SIP request to proxy1.org. - proxy1.org relays the request to proxy2.org. - proxy2.org relays the request to the destination/server. The request arriving to destination/server could look like (all the options mean the same): a) Via: SIP/2.0/TCP proxy2.org, SIP/2.0/UDP proxy1.org b) Via: SIP/2.0/TCP proxy2.org Via: SIP/2.0/UDP proxy1.org Anyhow I've checked that RFC2616 states that Via in HTTP should use the opposite order. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> -- To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to [email protected]. Please contact [email protected] for questions.
