On 27 Feb 2018, at 5:00 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> They had likely RTFM ... looking at
> https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mod_remoteip.html#remoteipproxyprotocol
>
> Compatibility:RemoteIPProxyProtocol is only available in httpd 2.4.28 and
> newer
Fixed in r1825468.
or another method is simple copy .c file from 2.5/trunk and compile it with
2.4.30 using apxs. I did it and it's working fine
Thx
Marcin
Od: "Jacob Perkins"
Do: "dev"
Wysłane: wtorek, 27 luty 2018 16:23:07
Temat: Re: 2.4.29 || mod_remoteip w/RemoteIPProxyProt
;mailto:jacob.perk...@cpanel.net>> wrote:
>
>> I have a customer who’s attempting to use RemoteIPProxyProtocol with
>> mod_remoteIP. Per 2.4 documentation, this directive should be available (
>> https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mod_remoteip.html
>> <h
Jr wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>> On 27 Feb 2018, at 4:44 PM, Jacob Perkins wrote:
>>
>> I have a customer who’s attempting to use RemoteIPProxyProtocol with
>> mod_remoteIP. Per 2.4 documentation, this directive should be available
,
>
> I have a customer who’s attempting to use RemoteIPProxyProtocol with
> mod_remoteIP. Per 2.4 documentation, this directive should be available (
> https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mod_remoteip.html
> <https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mod_remoteip.html> )
&g
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2018, at 4:44 PM, Jacob Perkins wrote:
>
> I have a customer who’s attempting to use RemoteIPProxyProtocol with
> mod_remoteIP. Per 2.4 documentation, this directive should be available (
> https://httpd.apache.o
On 27 Feb 2018, at 4:44 PM, Jacob Perkins wrote:
> I have a customer who’s attempting to use RemoteIPProxyProtocol with
> mod_remoteIP. Per 2.4 documentation, this directive should be available (
> https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mod_remoteip.html
> <https://httpd.apac
Good morning,
I have a customer who’s attempting to use RemoteIPProxyProtocol with
mod_remoteIP. Per 2.4 documentation, this directive should be available (
https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mod_remoteip.html
<https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mod_remoteip.html> )
I built
For now it seems that all the vhost selection logic is duplicated, but
> >> indeed it's not global (nor really per vhost, but yes this is thee
> >> scope which comes closest).
> >
> > I think the problem distills down to our config lacking an explicit
> confi
Ylavic wrote:
>
> The docs talk about connection based config, while ap_server_conf is
> really the main server config.
> The code should be improved to be based on c->baser_server config
> (with merging of RemoteIPProxyProtocol*), unless I'm missing something
> it seems (a
nfig lacking an explicit
> configuration container for the IP address and port, something like this:
>
> # global
>
> # per port
> RemoteIPProxyProtocol on
>
> # per virtual host
>
>
>
> In the absence of a Bind directive (or equivale
it
configuration container for the IP address and port, something like this:
# global
# per port
RemoteIPProxyProtocol on
# per virtual host
In the absence of a Bind directive (or equivalent) we’re left with this
undesirable config:
# global, yuck
RemoteIPProxyProtocol
t;baser_server config
>> (with merging of RemoteIPProxyProtocol*), unless I'm missing something
>> it seems (as of now) that the directives overwrite each other when
>> used in vhost context (not only for name-based vhosts).
>> So now (or post-backport) I think we should a
On 14 Feb 2018, at 1:03 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> The docs talk about connection based config, while ap_server_conf is
> really the main server config.
> The code should be improved to be based on c->baser_server config
> (with merging of RemoteIPProxyProtocol*), unless I'm mi
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:21 AM, wrote:
>
>*) mod_remoteip: Add PROXY protocol support
[]
> ylavic: RemoteIPProxyProtocol* are documented as scoped to server config
> and virtual host, though using ap_server_conf makes them global
> only (t
On 15 Jan 2017, at 18:35, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>> As we *sure* we want to call it RemoteIPProxyProtocol instead
>> of just "regular" ProxyProtocol ?
>>
>> The latter just sounds and looks "more right" to me.
>
> I still like RemoteIPProxyProto
On 1/9/2017 8:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Once we backport to 2.4, it will be nigh-impossible to change
> the name...
>
> As we *sure* we want to call it RemoteIPProxyProtocol instead
> of just "regular" ProxyProtocol ?
>
> The latter just sounds and looks &q
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
> Gesendet: Montag, 9. Januar 2017 15:50
> An: httpd
> Betreff: RemoteIPProxyProtocol
>
> Once we backport to 2.4, it will be nigh-impossible to change
> the name...
>
> A
Once we backport to 2.4, it will be nigh-impossible to change
the name...
As we *sure* we want to call it RemoteIPProxyProtocol instead
of just "regular" ProxyProtocol ?
The latter just sounds and looks "more right" to me.
19 matches
Mail list logo
