Hi Nenad,
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 10:04:58PM -0400, Nenad Merdanovic wrote:
> The get_addr() method of the Lua Server class was using the
> 'sockaddr_storage addr' member to get the port value. HAProxy does not
> store ports in this member as it uses a separate member, called
> 'svc_port'.
Hmmm g
Hi Aleks,
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 09:50:41AM +0200, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
> > Personally I use 2 rules similar to the following to append to
> > X-Forwarded-For:
> >
> > http-request set-header X-Forwarded-For
> > %[req.fhdr(X-Forwarded-For)],\ %[src] if { req.fhdr(X-Forwar
Hi Kevin,
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 02:06:52PM -0700, Kevin McArthur wrote:
> Further... the odd/broken behavior might be being caused related to no sni
> indication on the health checks...
>
> This config sort of works:
>
>
> *server app2 ssltest.example.ca:443 ssl verify required /verifyhost
>
The get_addr() method of the Lua Server class was using the
'sockaddr_storage addr' member to get the port value. HAProxy does not
store ports in this member as it uses a separate member, called
'svc_port'.
This fix should be backported to 1.7.
---
src/hlua_fcn.c | 6 ++
1 file changed, 2 ins
The get_addr() method of the Lua Server class incorrectly used
INET_ADDRSTRLEN for IPv6 addresses resulting in failing to convert
longer IPv6 addresses to strings.
This fix should be backported to 1.7.
---
src/hlua_fcn.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/hlua
Hi Claus,
Claus Strommer wrote on 23.07.2017:
> Hi Aleks,
>
> Patrick's solution is correct. What I was expecting was that HAProxy would
> take
>
> X-Forwarded-For: 1.1.1.1
>
> and produce
>
> X-Forwarded-For: 1.1.1.1,2.2.2.2
>
> but what it actually does is produce
>
> X-Forwarded-For: 1.1.1.1
Hi Aleks,
Patrick's solution is correct. What I was expecting was that HAProxy would
take
X-Forwarded-For: 1.1.1.1
and produce
X-Forwarded-For: 1.1.1.1,2.2.2.2
but what it actually does is produce
X-Forwarded-For: 1.1.1.1
X-Forwarded-For: 2.2.2.2
The backend concatenates the lines and treat
Hi Patrick Hemmer,
Patrick Hemmer wrote on 22.07.2017:
> On 2017/7/22 11:11, Claus Strommer wrote:
>
> Hi all, I'm seeing some odd behaviour with our
> haproxy balancer and am looking for some insights.
>
>The setup:
>
>
Hi DHAVAL JAISWAL,
DHAVAL JAISWAL wrote on 21.07.2017:
> I have used ELB (public) as a front of Haproxy and ELB (internal) as a
> backend for the apps server.
>
> so structure is like as follows. Currently using Haproxy 1.7.
> However, request is not going to the backend server.
>
> ELB ->> HAP
9 matches
Mail list logo