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
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.
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
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
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
5 matches
Mail list logo