Hi guys,
On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 10:13:11PM +0100, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> > Since TLS ciphers are not well understand, it is very common parameters
> > from documentation are used as is. Since RC4 should not be used anymore
> > I believe it is wiser to show example including stronger ciphers to
> >
Thanks Willy and Lukas,
I've tried your config suggestions; the system behavior seems to be pretty
similar to with accept filters. It's also simpler for me to deploy, so it's a
definitely win.
Thanks again!
On 2/1/19, 11:50 PM, "Willy Tarreau" wrote:
Hi Lukas,
On Sat, Feb 02, 2
Hi Lukas.
Am 04.02.2019 um 21:39 schrieb Lukas Tribus:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 12:14, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I have just opened a new Issue about DoH for resolving.
>>
>> https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/33
>>
>> As I know that this is a major change in the In
Hello,
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 20:48, Bertrand Jacquin wrote:
>
> Since TLS ciphers are not well understand, it is very common parameters
> from documentation are used as is. Since RC4 should not be used anymore
> I believe it is wiser to show example including stronger ciphers to
> avoid deployin
Hello,
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 12:14, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> I have just opened a new Issue about DoH for resolving.
>
> https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/33
>
> As I know that this is a major change in the Infrastructure I would like to
> here what you think about this sugge
This is mainly driven by the fact TLSv1.3 will have a successor at some
point.
---
doc/configuration.txt | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/configuration.txt b/doc/configuration.txt
index fe5eb25076c7..f7e1339a3e9b 100644
--- a/doc/configuration.txt
+++ b/d
Since TLS ciphers are not well understand, it is very common parameters
from documentation are used as is. Since RC4 should not be used anymore
I believe it is wiser to show example including stronger ciphers to
avoid deploying unsafe configuration in the wild.
"ALL" is also to avoid since it cont
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 04:05:15PM +, Juan Pablo Mora wrote:
>
> During a period of slowness of my database I see this log (HAProxy 1.7.5):
>
>
> Feb 4 11:09:30 localhost.localdomain haproxy[23601]: 185.198.176.21:41987
> [04/Feb/2019:11:09:12.408] WWW BUS/BUS2 9/8785/2/8860/17657 200
Hi all,
as discussed a few times in the past, we have the possibility to enable
the Wiki on the github repository. In the past a few of us thought it
would be a nice alternative to the obsolete architecture manual because
it would allow a number of people to contribute to various areas with a
rela
During a period of slowness of my database I see this log (HAProxy 1.7.5):
Feb 4 11:09:30 localhost.localdomain haproxy[23601]: 185.198.176.21:41987
[04/Feb/2019:11:09:12.408] WWW BUS/BUS2 9/8785/2/8860/17657 200 596 8453 - -
cQ-- 528/236/37/14/0 0/9 {|3701F3DB6BBF1DAC} {|RESULT_OK_HEADER} "P
Hi Veiko,
On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 01:52:28PM +, Veiko Kukk wrote:
> I'm sure it happens with all versions we have tried: 1.6, 1.7, 1.9 (did not
> try 1.8, because we have never used it in production and decided to switch
> directly to 1.9), but how could we make sure it's caused by something
>
ppens only/more with keep-alive, close
or
server-close ?
I have seen no difference, unfortunately.
If you can run more tests in your test environment, I'd be interested
in
seeing how latest 2.0-dev works with these variants :
Tested with
http://www.haproxy.org/download/2.0/src/snaps
Hi.
I have just opened a new Issue about DoH for resolving.
https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/33
As I know that this is a major change in the Infrastructure I would like to
here what you think about this suggestion.
My opinion was at the beginning against this change as there was only
13 matches
Mail list logo
