Re: [us...@httpd] Building Apache 2.2 without IPv6
It was thus said that the Great Daniel Reinhardt once stated: > > ISPs will soon > >start to provide their customers with routers that support IPv6, so > >this is in my opinion a wise decision. It's a bit like TV > >manucfaturers including a DVB-T tuner in their offerings, even though > >most people don't have a need for it, yet. > > > >Krist > > > > And until that day happens, then Linux Distributions should leave IPv6 > disabled until such a day arises. I've been using Linux since 1996 and *all* the distributions come with stuff I don't care to have (any number of window managers, none of which are window managers I care to use so I end up having to install my preferred one). Yes, I would love for the distributions not to include such packages, but what I don't like someone else does. And I, for one, *am* playing around with IPv6 on my home network, so I don't mind IPv6 being installed. I do, however, with KDE and Gnome wasn't, as I don't use those. Yet there they are, installed and ready to go. I also fail to understand why you are so insistent upon removing IPv6. My home router can't deal with IPv6 either, but the fact that the four computers I have on my network support IPv6 hasn't been an issue. Yes, I can understand not liking the space it takes up on the kernel (on my Linux system, it reports taking up 242,657 bytes) and removing it if not needed, but the IPv6 support in other applications isn't quite as large. I removed IPv6 support from a program I wrote---only 70 lines of code removed (removed command line options, usage statement, anything at all related to support of IPv6) and the savings between the two versions: 1,287 bytes (and that's with full debugging support and a non-optimized compilation). Also, looking on my system, I see that sshd, X and DNS are using IPv6. Have you checked all the other programs on your system? -spc - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [us...@httpd] mod_rewrite/rewriterule - forcing a HTTP 500 code on all access attempt?
On Dec 4, 2009, at 20:25 , Frank Z wrote: is there a way via RewriteRule to force all access to a certain URL to return with a HTTP 500 e.g. i have a number 3 applications that are or will be obsoleted and is expected to return a 500 to all callers who try to access it. so when someone tries to access a deprecated URL such as http://myserver/myApp1 I would like to send back a 500 and preferably some textual information (nice to have). Will it be possible to do this via mod_rewrite? You can use the R flag to return any valid HTTP status RewriteRule ^/myApp1 - [R=500] but, as Nick says, returning a 500 for it seems to be a lot less useful than a 404 or a 410 and an ErrorDocument. -- Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [us...@httpd] mod_rewrite/rewriterule - forcing a HTTP 500 code on all access attempt?
On 5 Dec 2009, at 01:25, Frank Z wrote: > is there a way via RewriteRule to force all access to a certain URL to return > with a HTTP 500 > > e.g. i have a number 3 applications that are or will be obsoleted and is > expected to return a 500 to all callers who try to access it. > > so when someone tries to access a deprecated URL such as > http://myserver/myApp1 I would like to send back a 500 and preferably some > textual information (nice to have). > > Will it be possible to do this via mod_rewrite? (a) Don't send 500. 410 (Gone) would seem more appropriate. (b) Yes, you can do this with mod_rewrite: just put your text in an ErrorDocument. Or for a possibly-simpler solution, look up mod_asis and put the entire response in a single file. -- Nick Kew - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
[us...@httpd] mod_rewrite/rewriterule - forcing a HTTP 500 code on all access attempt?
is there a way via RewriteRule to force all access to a certain URL to return with a HTTP 500 e.g. i have a number 3 applications that are or will be obsoleted and is expected to return a 500 to all callers who try to access it. so when someone tries to access a deprecated URL such as http://myserver/myApp1 I would like to send back a 500 and preferably some textual information (nice to have). Will it be possible to do this via mod_rewrite? Thanks. - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
[us...@httpd] Apache error - getsockname failed
Hi, I am getting following message in the error log of apache. I am using apache with subversion. Error log message: [warn] (OS 10038)An operation was attempted on something that is not a socket. : getsockname failed Please let me know why do I get this warning? And how to resolve it? Thanks Sai -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Apache-error---getsockname-failed-tp26636051p26636051.html Sent from the Apache HTTP Server - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
RE: [us...@httpd] Passing remote client IP address to backend server and session stickness
Hi, Haroon and Tom
I think I found the problem but I have to wait for backend Oracle DB to make a
change to test.
But it seems nobody answers my question 2.
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Haroon Rafique [mailto:haroon.rafi...@utoronto.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 10:57 AM
To: users@httpd.apache.org
Subject: RE: [us...@httpd] Passing remote client IP address to backend server
and session stickness
On Today at 10:29am, RJ=>Ruiyuan Jiang wrote:
RJ> Hi, Haroon
RJ>
RJ> Thanks for the reply. Do you mean they are automatically activated for
RJ> reverse proxy?
Yes.
RJ>
RJ> Unfortunately it does not work for me if they are activated.
RJ>
What does not work? The X-Forwarded-For header *is* there and that's where
the automatic part ends. Is your application looking for it? Looking for
it in what way?
RJ>
RJ> My backend server will be Oracle 9iAS or Oracle 10gAS.
RJ>
Seems like you are on the java platform. How about deploying a test
servlet? or a jsp as follows:
<%= request.getHeader("X-Forwarded-For") %>
On an aside, mod_remoteip does all of the address figuring out in apache
land. AFAIK, it is only bundled with apache 2.3. I see that you are asking
on another thread about how to include mod_remoteip in apache 2.2 land.
Again, I can only tell you about my experiences. I use apache 2.2.x with
mod_proxy in a reverse-proxy configruation. For my java app, I use
xebia-france XForwardedFilter (which is a java port of mod_remoteip).
RJ>
RJ> Ryan
RJ>
Cheers,
--
Haroon Rafique
-
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
This message (including any attachments) is intended
solely for the specific individual(s) or entity(ies) named
above, and may contain legally privileged and
confidential information. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender immediately by
replying to this message and then delete it.
Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message,
or the taking of any action based on it, by other than the
intended recipient, is strictly prohibited.
-
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
[us...@httpd] Re: Building Apache 2.2 without IPv6
On 4-Dec-2009, at 07:47, Jorge Medina wrote: > What a nasty member of the user list! Nah, just a bad case of myopia. -- BUGS: There is no conversion specification for the phase of the moon." strftime(3) man page - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [us...@httpd] Building Apache 2.2 without IPv6
What a nasty member of the user list! On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Daniel Reinhardt wrote: > > ISPs will soon > >> start to provide their customers with routers that support IPv6, so >> this is in my opinion a wise decision. It's a bit like TV >> manucfaturers including a DVB-T tuner in their offerings, even though >> most people don't have a need for it, yet. >> >> Krist >> >> > And until that day happens, then Linux Distributions should leave IPv6 > disabled until such a day arises. > > - > The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. > See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org > " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org > >
Re: [us...@httpd] Building Apache 2.2 without IPv6
ISPs will soon start to provide their customers with routers that support IPv6, so this is in my opinion a wise decision. It's a bit like TV manucfaturers including a DVB-T tuner in their offerings, even though most people don't have a need for it, yet. Krist And until that day happens, then Linux Distributions should leave IPv6 disabled until such a day arises. - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [us...@httpd] Ampersand extends to the left part of regexes with RewriteRule, RedirectMatch and SetEnvIf: is that expected?
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 14:04, Eric Covener wrote: > On 12/4/09, Francis GALIEGUE wrote: >> I have tried to backslash it > > Backslash worked for me in the RedirectMatch test. > Well, it does indeed... During my test period, I forgot that I had an ExpiresDefault set to "access plus 1 month" in the test vhost... So, yes, escaping the & with a backslash does work indeed, and I've tested with the three configurations mentioned: the backslash works each time. -- Francis Galiegue ONE2TEAM Ingénieur système Mob : +33 (0) 683 877 875 Tel : +33 (0) 178 945 552 f...@one2team.com 40 avenue Raymond Poincaré 75116 Paris - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
[us...@httpd] Re: .htaccess restricts write permission from webdav
On 3-Dec-2009, at 22:22, J. Bakshi wrote:
> Options +FollowSymLinks
>
> RewriteEngine On
> RewriteRule ^typo3$ - [L]
> RewriteRule ^typo3/.*$ - [L]
>
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-l
>
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !^/webdav
> RewriteRule .* index.php
Hmm. Could it be you have to exempt the webdav from ALL the rules, not just the
REQUEST_FILENAME? I've got limited help to give, my configuration was
different, so my condition was different.
Try commenting out the typo3 rules for now and see if that changes the
behavior. Beyond that, your guess is as good as mine.
--
BUGS: There is no conversion specification for the phase of the
moon." strftime(3) man page
-
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [us...@httpd] Re: Ampersand extends to the left part of regexes with RewriteRule, RedirectMatch and SetEnvIf: is that expected?
On 12/4/09, Eric Covener wrote: > On 12/4/09, Francis GALIEGUE wrote: > > > The problem I have is with the & being systematically understood by > > the right size of regexes to mean "the whole thing matched by the > > matching left regex". While this is a common regex idiom in "basic" > > regexes (sed acts this way for instance), it is not expected at all > > from pcre (Perl doesn't know about &, and from what I've read about > > pcre so far, pcre doesn't know about it either). Hence my puzzle. > > > I think Apache is simulating perls $&, and I think it's on purpose. > Seems pretty unwise. That is definitely the case. -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [us...@httpd] Re: Ampersand extends to the left part of regexes with RewriteRule, RedirectMatch and SetEnvIf: is that expected?
On 12/4/09, Francis GALIEGUE wrote: > The problem I have is with the & being systematically understood by > the right size of regexes to mean "the whole thing matched by the > matching left regex". While this is a common regex idiom in "basic" > regexes (sed acts this way for instance), it is not expected at all > from pcre (Perl doesn't know about &, and from what I've read about > pcre so far, pcre doesn't know about it either). Hence my puzzle. I think Apache is simulating perls $&, and I think it's on purpose. Seems pretty unwise. -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [us...@httpd] Re: Ampersand extends to the left part of regexes with RewriteRule, RedirectMatch and SetEnvIf: is that expected?
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 14:07, André Warnier wrote: [...] > First, I believe that one mistake is to include the trailing question mark > into the URL which you redirect. > In http://my.server.com/foo/?var1=val1... > The "?" is not actually part of the URI. It is a separator between the URI > and the query string. So the URI to test is "/foo/", and not "/foo/?". > Second, in "RedirectMatch", "RewriteCond" and "RewriteRule", the argument is > a regexp, not a string. So when you write "/foo/?$", you mean actually : > "/foo", possibly followed by "/", followed by the end of the string. > If you really wanted to test for a "?", you would have to escape it as "\?". > > I do not know if this is the source of your particular problem, but it may > contribute to the strange results which you are seeing later. > No, the ? is intended, I want to match either /foo or /foo/, so ^/foo/?$ is the correct regex, I'm sure about that. The problem I have is with the & being systematically understood by the right size of regexes to mean "the whole thing matched by the matching left regex". While this is a common regex idiom in "basic" regexes (sed acts this way for instance), it is not expected at all from pcre (Perl doesn't know about &, and from what I've read about pcre so far, pcre doesn't know about it either). Hence my puzzle. -- Francis Galiegue ONE2TEAM Ingénieur système Mob : +33 (0) 683 877 875 Tel : +33 (0) 178 945 552 f...@one2team.com 40 avenue Raymond Poincaré 75116 Paris - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [us...@httpd] Re: Ampersand extends to the left part of regexes with RewriteRule, RedirectMatch and SetEnvIf: is that expected?
Francis GALIEGUE wrote: On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 09:55, Francis GALIEGUE wrote: Hello everyone, I've had the request to redirect a particular URI, say /foo or /foo/ to http://some.external.site/?var1=val1&var2=val2&var3=val3. The Apache server version is 2.0.52 used on RHEL 4.x. I have tested with 2.2.3 on RHEL 5.x and the behaviour below is the same... This has also been tested on the latest Debian stable: the behavior is exactly the same. It seems that it is the core Apache regex mechanism which is in cause here. Now, the question is, is it intended. First, I believe that one mistake is to include the trailing question mark into the URL which you redirect. In http://my.server.com/foo/?var1=val1... The "?" is not actually part of the URI. It is a separator between the URI and the query string. So the URI to test is "/foo/", and not "/foo/?". Second, in "RedirectMatch", "RewriteCond" and "RewriteRule", the argument is a regexp, not a string. So when you write "/foo/?$", you mean actually : "/foo", possibly followed by "/", followed by the end of the string. If you really wanted to test for a "?", you would have to escape it as "\?". I do not know if this is the source of your particular problem, but it may contribute to the strange results which you are seeing later. - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [us...@httpd] Ampersand extends to the left part of regexes with RewriteRule, RedirectMatch and SetEnvIf: is that expected?
On 12/4/09, Francis GALIEGUE wrote: > I have tried to backslash it Backslash worked for me in the RedirectMatch test. -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
[us...@httpd] Re: Ampersand extends to the left part of regexes with RewriteRule, RedirectMatch and SetEnvIf: is that expected?
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 09:55, Francis GALIEGUE wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I've had the request to redirect a particular URI, say /foo or /foo/ > to http://some.external.site/?var1=val1&var2=val2&var3=val3. The > Apache server version is 2.0.52 used on RHEL 4.x. I have tested with > 2.2.3 on RHEL 5.x and the behaviour below is the same... > This has also been tested on the latest Debian stable: the behavior is exactly the same. It seems that it is the core Apache regex mechanism which is in cause here. Now, the question is, is it intended. -- Francis Galiegue ONE2TEAM Ingénieur système Mob : +33 (0) 683 877 875 Tel : +33 (0) 178 945 552 f...@one2team.com 40 avenue Raymond Poincaré 75116 Paris - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [us...@httpd] Re-negotiation handshake failed: Not accepted by client!?
On 01.12.09 09:53, Jai wrote: > We are trying to configure apache to accept client certificate when > accessing the page from client side. Here is the configuration, I wonder you bring this issue up two weeks after finding out that SSL re-negotiation is unsecure and should not be used: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-announce/200911.mbox/%3c20091107013220.31376.qm...@minotaur.apache.org%3e > > RewriteEngine on > RewriteOptions inherit > ServerName *** > JkMountFile /apps/local/apache-ssl/conf/jkm_servicesit06.properties > JkRequestLogFormat "%w %V %T" > SSLCertificateFile certs/services.crt > Include conf/shared-ssl.conf > > SSLCACertificatePath /apps/local/ssl_certificates/clients > SSLVerifyClient require > > -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. The 3 biggets disasters: Hiroshima 45, Tschernobyl 86, Windows 95 - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [us...@httpd] HTTPS connections via mod_proxy ProxyRemote don't work
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Devraj Mukherjee wrote: > Any ideas if I need to do something special when using ProxyRemote and HTTPS? I asume that since your revers proxy does some content mangling that your clients talk plain http to your proxy? A few thinks to look at: - Does your Squid proxy allow the "CONNECT" http method? - Is apache configured to function as an SSL client? You need at least to enable SSLProxyEngine, and define an SSLProxyCACertificatePath. In the second case you need to add the following to your config: # turn on SSL proxying. SSLProxyEngine On # to tell Apache where to find CA certificates to check remote server # certificates with: # (You can choose yourself where you put these certificates) SSLProxyCACertificatePath /path/to/ca/certificates. Then in this path you need to put the CA certificate(s) used to sign the certificate(s) used by the server(s) you communicate with. If you want to talk to a server that uses a "self signed" certificate you will need to put it in this dir too. Once you've done that you need to run "c_rehash" in that directory. c_rehash is part of a standard openssl distribution. c_rehash creates hashed aliases in this dir. Apache needs these. Krist -- krist.vanbes...@gmail.com kr...@vanbesien.org Bremgarten b. Bern, Switzerland -- A: It reverses the normal flow of conversation. Q: What's wrong with top-posting? A: Top-posting. Q: What's the biggest scourge on plain text email discussions? - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [us...@httpd] Building Apache 2.2 without IPv6
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Daniel Reinhardt wrote: > Actually it has everything to do with it. IPv6 is useless to me on a small > HOME LAN of 5 computers. It should be disabled by default, and an allowable > option by those who wish to use IPv6. It shouldn't be forced down peoples > throats. Its like how Linux/Unix Distribution Creaters forcing IPv6 in a > kernel when someone may not have a need for it or find it useless. They > should instead build their distributions with IPv4 enabled by default, and > include a IPv6 enabled Kernel for those who want to use it. As such so > should software developers, they should create their software and distribute > it with default settings enabled, such as ipv6 being disabled unless wanted > by the end-user. Those who desire IPv6 functionality should be the only > ones wanting to compile their software and kernels with such goals in mind. It's not forced down your throat. You can safely ignore IPv6 if you're not using it. Even if your linux machine enables IPv6 by default, and starts and IPv6 interface you don't have to worry about things breaking because of it. If your router doesn't route IPv6 you still don't have to worry about some devices in your network bringing up IPv6 interfaces. Linux disrtro maintainers include IPv6 because the aim is to provide a kernel that everyone can use, without having to recompile. Another aim is to incourage people to actually start using IPv6. ISPs will soon start to provide their customers with routers that support IPv6, so this is in my opinion a wise decision. It's a bit like TV manucfaturers including a DVB-T tuner in their offerings, even though most people don't have a need for it, yet. Krist -- krist.vanbes...@gmail.com kr...@vanbesien.org Bremgarten b. Bern, Switzerland -- A: It reverses the normal flow of conversation. Q: What's wrong with top-posting? A: Top-posting. Q: What's the biggest scourge on plain text email discussions? - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [us...@httpd] Building Apache 2.2 without IPv6
* Daniel Reinhardt [2009-12-04 09:31]: > Its like how Linux/Unix Distribution Creaters forcing IPv6 in a > kernel when someone may not have a need for it or find it useless. > They should instead build their distributions with IPv4 enabled by > default, and include a IPv6 enabled Kernel for those who want to use > it. Applying that same argument to any part of the kernel or network stack someone out there might have no use for, how many kernel images a distribution might have? This is of course not only absurd, it also ignores loadable modules support in the kernel. As to your suggestion for httpd (to stay at least slightly on-topic): Sure there's a tension between "secure by default" (whoever still claims this these days) and "lots of useful features enabled by default", but since not binding httpd to IPv6 interfaces it is trivially easy (as has been pointed out), why ruin it for everyone else who might need it? (Should they all need to recompile? Or, again, should distributions ship gazillion prepackaged versions of httpd, each with a different set of enabled features?). Also defaults are a bikeshed. -peter - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [us...@httpd] Building Apache 2.2 without IPv6
From: "William A. Rowe Jr." Sent: 04 December, 2009 8:51 To: Subject: Re: [us...@httpd] Building Apache 2.2 without IPv6 But if APR *detected* IPv6 functions, that functionality is enabled. If your packager dropped you an IPv6 enabled package and an IPv4 kernel, that is their mistake and you need to move this dialog to their forum if you hope to gain any results from your complaints. I got the package from http://httpd.apache.org via the download links. It always detected IPv6 regardless of having --disable-ipv6 in my configure options. This package for HTTPD didn't come from the Slackware Developmental team. I have no IPv6 in my kernel, so why should I have it in software I compile myself? Consider this thread over and dealt with. - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
[us...@httpd] Ampersand extends to the left part of regexes with RewriteRule, RedirectMatch and SetEnvIf: is that expected?
Hello everyone,
I've had the request to redirect a particular URI, say /foo or /foo/
to http://some.external.site/?var1=val1&var2=val2&var3=val3. The
Apache server version is 2.0.52 used on RHEL 4.x. I have tested with
2.2.3 on RHEL 5.x and the behaviour below is the same...
This looked quite simple, so I tried this:
RedirectMatch permanent ^/foo/?$
http://some.external.site/?var1=val1&var2=val2&var3=val3
This didn't quite work as expected since if I enter
http://first.site/foo/, what I see in the URL bar in the browser after
the redirect is:
http://some.external.site/?var1=val1/foo/var2=val2/foo/var3=val3
So, the & has extended to the "left" part of the regex... Maybe this
bug was only with mod_alias's RedirectMatch, so I tried mod_rewrite
instead, in the following way:
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/foo/?$
RewriteRule ^/foo/?$
http://some.external.site/?var1=val1&var2=val2&var3=val3 [R,QSA]
Same thing! Out of despair, I even tried to combine mod_setenvif with
mod_rewrite:
SetEnvIf Request_URI ^ qs=var1=val1&var2=val2&var3=val3
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/foo/?$
RewriteRule ^/foo/?$ http://some.external.site/?%{ENV:qs} [R,QSA]
But to my suprise, the ill-fated & striked again! The & in the
environment variable is replaced with whatever was matched by the
regex after Request_URI (even nothing, like in the above example) :(
Is this expected or is this a bug? I have tried and googled for hours
without being able to solve this problem... Is there a simple way to
just make the & literal in right parts? I have tried to backslash it
away to no effect...
Thanks in advance,
--
Francis Galiegue
ONE2TEAM
Ingénieur système
Mob : +33 (0) 683 877 875
Tel : +33 (0) 178 945 552
f...@one2team.com
40 avenue Raymond Poincaré
75116 Paris
-
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [us...@httpd] Building Apache 2.2 without IPv6
Daniel Reinhardt wrote: > From: "William A. Rowe Jr." > Sent: 04 December, 2009 7:03 > To: > Subject: Re: [us...@httpd] Building Apache 2.2 without IPv6 > >> Zachary Uram wrote: >>> Krist I prefer IPv4 addressing. I can remember 128.2.10.12 but I can't >>> remember some insane IPv6 hexadecimal address! lol. And I love my >>> commands such as ping, traceroute, dig, host, nslookup etc. >> >> This has nothing to do with why to enable IPv6 in APR. > > Actually it has everything to do with it. IPv6 is useless to me on a > small HOME LAN of 5 computers. No, it isn't. IPv6 defines an entire set of improved DNS interrogation techniques which are vastly superior to the original, IPv4/Posix subset. getaddrinfo() and getnameinfo() don't exist without IPv6 'support'. That support doesn't have to include a single binding to an adapter, but those functions are part of the IPv6 'spec'. If you want to continue to belabor your arguments, this is a users list. I'm sure other users will entertain your dialog. But if APR *detected* IPv6 functions, that functionality is enabled. If your packager dropped you an IPv6 enabled package and an IPv4 kernel, that is their mistake and you need to move this dialog to their forum if you hope to gain any results from your complaints. - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [us...@httpd] Building Apache 2.2 without IPv6
From: "William A. Rowe Jr." Sent: 04 December, 2009 7:03 To: Subject: Re: [us...@httpd] Building Apache 2.2 without IPv6 Zachary Uram wrote: Krist I prefer IPv4 addressing. I can remember 128.2.10.12 but I can't remember some insane IPv6 hexadecimal address! lol. And I love my commands such as ping, traceroute, dig, host, nslookup etc. This has nothing to do with why to enable IPv6 in APR. Actually it has everything to do with it. IPv6 is useless to me on a small HOME LAN of 5 computers. It should be disabled by default, and an allowable option by those who wish to use IPv6. It shouldn't be forced down peoples throats. Its like how Linux/Unix Distribution Creaters forcing IPv6 in a kernel when someone may not have a need for it or find it useless. They should instead build their distributions with IPv4 enabled by default, and include a IPv6 enabled Kernel for those who want to use it. As such so should software developers, they should create their software and distribute it with default settings enabled, such as ipv6 being disabled unless wanted by the end-user. Those who desire IPv6 functionality should be the only ones wanting to compile their software and kernels with such goals in mind. Look, the IPv6 API is far superior to the standard posix IPv4 functions. IGNORE the danged IPv6 addresses, that isn't the point!!! It maybe "far superior" in your needs, but for me it isn't. To make Apache httpd speak only IPv4 is trivial. Replace Listen 80 with a sensible Listen 0.0.0.0:80 which tells httpd to listen only on IPv4 adapters, all of them, on their respective port 80's. And unless you tell it otherwise, it WON'T attempt to listen on any IPv6 adapters. I tried the above with no avail, and infact Apache failed to listen on IPv4 port 80 as one would hope. It still showed up as listening on the IPv6 interface via netstat -anp | grep 80. With no mention of 0.0.0.0:80 in netstat. And if IPv6 confuses you, PLEASE take a minute to look at :: syntax :) If the reasoning behind me wanting to disable IPv6 on my network and on my system's confuse you, then please take your leave. I came here for help regarding IPv6 and how to disable it in my environment. I didn't want testimonials of why it is great, and why I should be converted. I do not like not so well adopted protocols being enabled by default on my systems of which I control. My issue has been solved with due diligence, and due process on my part getting help from this mailing lists. Thank you, Daniel - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
