- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 16:48:32 +0100 (MET)
- To: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>
- Cc: fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU, josh@netscape.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Ari Luotonen: [...] >Redundant: > >305 is by no means the only way the client can be instructed to go >through a proxy. A regular 301/302 redirect could be used, pointing >to a "reverse" proxy. A "reverse proxy" appears as a regular server, >but is really a proxy when it comes to its content retrieval and >management. As far as the client knows, it's an origin server. > >This has benefits: the real origin server is completele hidden, the >users will never have to know about its existence. I'm confused. Does the reverse proxy have another hostname? (I think it must have one for 301/302 to work.) And if so, how can it be completely transparent to the users? Would you ever have two reverse proxies for one site? If so, and if they have different hostnames, this would reduce the cache efficiency for downstream caches. I agree that we have to be very careful when speccing 305. Would you like all your requests to be routed through wwwproxy.doubleclick.com? >Ari Luotonen * * * Opinions my own, not Netscape's * * * Koen.
Received on Sunday, 23 March 1997 07:50:40 UTC