Not at all.
This is physical host vs named based vhost.
We got clever and eliminated the distinction after 2.0... which is catching
up with us.
Should we reintroduce a physical vhost? I don't have a simple answer, but
we can at least keep repeating that the first vhost is the physical vhost
and
That explanation is noxious.
If enabled in the *default* initial matching physical ip:port host it
applies to all related hosts
If enabled in any secondary-non-default named vhost it is ignored.
On Feb 14, 2018 06:28, "Graham Leggett" wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2018, at 1:03 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
I had a patch posted here on Monday that introduces
...
with a server_rec and configs between base server and a a set of
vhosts. Would that satisfy your needs for this?
-Stefan
> Am 14.02.2018 um 14:39 schrieb Graham Leggett :
>
> On 14 Feb 2018, at 3:05 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
On 14 Feb 2018, at 3:05 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> It makes sense, and actually I missed some logic w.r.t.
> enabled/disabled being a list of sockaddrs (based on servers'
> server_addr_rec, and not a global boolean as I first thought...). This
> is later compared to incoming connections local addr.
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> 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 mergin
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 missing something
> it
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 (thus less useful to