-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 André,
On 2/23/2011 2:56 PM, André Warnier wrote: > Personally, in such a case I would see the solution with an SSH or VPN > tunnel as much simpler to put in place, and requiring much less "opening > of ports". There's nothing that says that port 8009 has to be used for AJP: you can use HTTPS over port 8009 just as well. So, the congressional approval necessary will only need to cover the switch from mod_proxy_ajp to mod_proxy_http. I would think you'd have to get approval for any of these actions... why not just pick the one that makes the most sense and request permission to do that? - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1ljckACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PARLACgkGOVZh0D8OJZHJNmvwu6B+Nw FFoAoLo4sqBLLUtpKW58msMrofW1LlAs =32/2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
