- From: Andreas Petersson <andreas@sbin.se>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:22:43 +0200
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@commscope.com>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:00:15 +0200 Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 06:49:32PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > While we're at it, I'd like to see extensibility points added; there are a bunch of bits of per-hop metadata that would be nice to allow in here, instead of defining separate headers. For example, in some use cases it'd be good to identify the receiving address, as well as the sending one. > > > > E.g., > > > > Forwarded-For: 1.2.3.4:5678; by=4.3.2.1:3128, 5.6.7.8:9012; by=3.2.1.0:80 > > Agreed. I'm used to see that info almost as commonly as the x-f-f header, > because people who want one generally want the other one too. In haproxy > it's implemented in the x-original-to header. The format above is much > better, but I suspect that some users will already complain that it's > harder to parse for them... > > Willy > What happens if someone wants to send the forwarded-by-information, but not the forwarded-for-information? Does that never occur? There seems to be an X-Forwarded-By in use. Maybe it would be better to have a header: Forwarded: for=5.6.7.8:3456, for=8.9.1.2;by=4.5.6.7 Forwarded: for=1.2.3.4:5678;by=4.3.2.1:3128;proto=https and thereby let all parameters being equal? /Andreas Petersson
Received on Monday, 18 April 2011 14:23:58 UTC