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

[Matt S Trout]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 02:34:45PM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Marlon Bailey wrote:
> 
> >I looked into how mod_proxy is handling this.  They pass a
> >X-Forwarded-Port header value with the port of the client.  So you can
> >rebuild the client information with
> >
> >X-Forwarded-For
> >and X-Forwarded-Port
> >
> >to tell whether the request was standard(port 80) or ssl(port 443) i
> >believe this would be a more general approach and seems to be working
> >for mod_proxy.  But it's beyond the scope of my RFC.
> 
> This is not really ideal. Again, in a dev situation, you might be 
> listening on non-standard ports. Only the frontend server _really_ knows 
> if the connection used SSL or not, so it should report this directly to 
> the backend.

Does your interest in this extend to willingness to supply a patch?

If not, please allow Marlon to patch for the problem he sees and you can
solve your additional problem later ...

-- 
      Matt S Trout       Need help with your Catalyst or DBIx::Class project?
   Technical Director    Want a managed development or deployment platform?
 Shadowcat Systems Ltd.  Contact mst (at) shadowcatsystems.co.uk for a quote
http://chainsawblues.vox.com/             http://www.shadowcatsystems.co.uk/