X-Forwarded-For header chaining

2009-09-02 Thread Miguel Pilar Vilagran
I am seeing (with option forwardfor) that HAProxy is replacing X-Fowarded-For instead of chaining the proxy chain. I know it's not an RFC but the defacto standard is to chain the proxies by appending to the header. For my usage it is not necessary but thought I'd point it out (Varnish also doesn't

Re: X-Forwarded-For header chaining

2009-09-02 Thread Alexander Staubo
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Miguel Pilar Vilagranmiguel.pi...@apex.pr wrote: I am seeing (with option forwardfor) that HAProxy is replacing X-Fowarded-For instead of chaining the proxy chain. I know it's not an RFC but the defacto standard is to chain the proxies by appending to the header.

Re: X-Forwarded-For header chaining

2009-09-02 Thread Miguel Pilar Vilagran
On 9/2/09 11:17 AM, Alexander Staubo a...@bengler.no wrote: On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Miguel Pilar Vilagranmiguel.pi...@apex.pr wrote: I am seeing (with option forwardfor) that HAProxy is replacing X-Fowarded-For instead of chaining the proxy chain. I know it's not an RFC but the

Re: X-Forwarded-For header chaining

2009-09-02 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 05:17:28PM +0200, Alexander Staubo wrote: On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Miguel Pilar Vilagranmiguel.pi...@apex.pr wrote: I am seeing (with option forwardfor) that HAProxy is replacing X-Fowarded-For instead of chaining the proxy chain. I know it's not an RFC but

Re: X-Forwarded-For header chaining

2009-09-02 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 05:06:01PM -0400, Miguel Pilar Vilagran wrote: The problem with this header (and a few others such as Via) is that it can appear multiple times, but it must always be chained in the correct sequence. Haproxy respects this. However I've already seen some applications