W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-02.txt - section 5.1

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 13:43:38 +1200
Message-ID: <4FA5D74A.4020900@treenet.co.nz>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 4/05/2012 9:34 p.m., Andreas Petersson wrote:
> On Wed, 02 May 2012 14:32:59 +1200
> Amos Jeffries<squid3@treenet.co.nz>  wrote:
>> ** section 5.1, must it be an interface label?
>> what about interception ports where the TCP details are not related to
>> the interface in any way and both details needed?

With the TPROXY/divert socket features in recent kernels replacing NAT 
there is a big disconnection of the TCP details and application 
listening port details.

For example an application can be listening on  and 
receiving TCP packets with src dst Which of 
the three IP:port values is best added to the header?

I know this only affects interception proxies which we dont *realy* want 
to cater for specifically. But it does bring up a clarity issue with the 

>> what about interfaces labelled with non-alphanumeric characters?

Using squid as an example:

   http_port name=localhost-3128
   http_port name=localhost-3129

"-" character is not matching the alpha-numeric ABNF requirements. Also 
the admin might have entered any UTF-8 characters from whatever language 
they use as the label.

> Hi,
> Can you explain how you mean/give some examples?
>   /andreas

Received on Sunday, 6 May 2012 01:44:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:00 UTC