On 05/20/2011 12:16 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 20/05/11 04:00, Alex Rousskov wrote: >> Hello, >> >> %la logs the destination address of the HTTP client connection. For >> regular requests, this is the http_port address as promised by our >> squid.conf documentation quoted below. For intercepted requests, it >> appears to be the origin server address because that is where the >> connection was going. >> >>> <A Server IP address or peer name >>> la Local IP address (http_port) >>> lp Local port number (http_port)
>> Should we fix documentation (i.e., warn the admin that %la logs origin >> server addresses for intercepted requests) or implementation (i.e., log >> the actual local address used by Squid to intercept the request)? > IMO. Implementation. With NAT there is no "local" IP:port. The more we > can make that clear the better. Sorry, the combination of "fix implementation" and "there is no local IP:port" confuses me. Do you mean that Squid should log a dash as a %la value for intercepted requests? To clarify context, folks want to know which Squid and/or which Squid http_port handled the transaction. In my experience, that is the primary driver behind most %l* or "local" requests. Logging a dash for intercepted requests would not help these admins, but we can insist that that is the correct value and then suggest another way to distinguish Squid instances and/or http_ports. What do you think we should log for %la when the connection was intercepted by Squid? Thank you, Alex. > NP: This will need some release notes. If the change to implementation > is small and easy as I expect it will, this will be able to go into 3.1. > >> >> I am guessing the same question applies to %lp. >> > > Yes. > > Amos
