OK, just to get this onto a different subject line... I can't seem to get
mod_proxy to work on the front end with name based virtual hosts on the
backend, I can only get it to work if I have name based virtual hosts on
both ends. So I have a front end saying:
NameVirtualHost 194.70.26.133
I'm not very skilled in this area, but it looks like you are proxying to
a backend on port 8080, but you never specify port 8080 in the config
for the backend... Perhaps this is it? Or did you leave out part of the
backend config?
Matt Sergeant wrote:
OK, just to get this onto a different
"MS" == Matt Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MS OK, just to get this onto a different subject line... I can't seem to get
MS mod_proxy to work on the front end with name based virtual hosts on the
MS backend, I can only get it to work if I have name based virtual hosts on
MS both ends. So I
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Drew Taylor wrote:
I'm not very skilled in this area, but it looks like you are proxying to
a backend on port 8080, but you never specify port 8080 in the config
for the backend... Perhaps this is it? Or did you leave out part of the
backend config?
No - I just left
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Vivek Khera wrote:
"MS" == Matt Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MS OK, just to get this onto a different subject line... I can't seem to get
MS mod_proxy to work on the front end with name based virtual hosts on the
MS backend, I can only get it to work if I have
"MS" == Matt Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MS Still doesn't solve the problem of editing only 1 config file, unless I
MS generate a config file with perl :(
I don't think it is possible to do it such that you only have one
config file to edit. Both sides need to know about the virtual
According to Matt Sergeant:
OK, just to get this onto a different subject line... I can't seem to get
mod_proxy to work on the front end with name based virtual hosts on the
backend, I can only get it to work if I have name based virtual hosts on
both ends.
You should be able to use IP based
