-------- In message <cakbjt_5cy3hamtjdgfae7vfjzpw4+fk+bbss7f4my+hxbs6...@mail.gmail.com> , Audun Ytterdal writes:
The reason PROXY makes sense for HAproxy and similar "plumbing" proxies, is that they do no session-multiplexing to begin with, so PROXY only has upsides for them: Send a prefix, then just move bytes. For Varnish much richer feature set, PROXY between Varnish and the backend has significant downsides. The biggest downside is that that any V->BE connection can only ever be used for requests coming from one single C->V connection. (X-)Forwarded-For doesn't have that problem. That said, it wouldn't be too hard to make it possible to send PROXY to the backend. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
