On tis, 2008-11-04 at 22:37 +0530, Arun Srinivasan wrote:
Yes. I could see the connections go over lo interface. However, it is
not getting handled by the stack.
Public addresses can not talk to loopback addresses (127.X). This is an
intentional security restriction in the TCP/IP stack.
Also
Arun Srinivasan wrote:
Thanks for the response.
- does the client IP have access to use the hidden peer proxy?
Yes. To ensure this I tried it out with an 'nc' utility instead of peer proxy.
- do the connections between peers go over lo interface? I'm not sure
what the special kernel behavior
Thanks for the response.
- does the client IP have access to use the hidden peer proxy?
Yes. To ensure this I tried it out with an 'nc' utility instead of peer proxy.
- do the connections between peers go over lo interface? I'm not sure
what the special kernel behavior with public IPs on
Arun Srinivasan wrote:
Hi List,
Has anyone successfully used cache_peer support with tproxy4 enabled?
Not that I'm aware of at this point.
The scenario is running Squid proxy with tproxy4 enabled and another
http proxy (no tproxy4) on the same box.
First Squid would receive the request
