[Catalyst] RFC for handling reverse proxies not deployed to standard ports.

Bill Moseley moseley at hank.org
Fri Jun 15 19:31:24 GMT 2007

On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Andy Grundman wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, at 12:24 PM, Marlon Bailey wrote:
> >Current situation:  There is no clean solution for deploying a reverse
> >proxy to a nonstandard HTTP(80)/HTTPs(443) port, like port 8080.
> >
> >Suggestion:  I'd like to submit a solution that extends the current
> >proxy-backend practice of reading the proxy values out of the request
> >header.  Currently the client's IP is taken from a "X-Forwarded-For"
> >header value, and the host's(Reverse Proxy) hostname is taken from a
> >"X-Forwarded-Host" header value. I suggest adding the ability for
> >Catalyst to set the host's port from a "X-Forwarded-Host-Port" header
> >value.  This way a simple config option such as this
> >
> >HEADER balancer_for_dev2 insert X-Forwarded-Host-Port: 8080
> >
> >in a Perlbal config will give a clean solution.
> I'm ok with X-Forwarded-Host-Port.

How do you know what port to redirect from http to https?  For
example when using RequireSSL plugin?

> If you patch this, be sure to also patch the Apache engine.  In fact,  
> maybe you could refactor this so the proxy checking can be done in a  
> single place in Catalyst::Engine, instead of duplicated in multiple  
> engines (my fault).

That would be a nice refactoring.

Bill Moseley
moseley at hank.org

More information about the Catalyst mailing list