httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gonyou, Austin" <aus...@coremetrics.com>
Subject RE: Listen vs. Port
Date Mon, 13 Aug 2001 18:54:46 GMT
So then are you recommending that there be only one type of directive with a
dual role? Listen or port?, but not both?

I find the functionality of the two so different that it's not a good idea
to do away with one over the other. Perhaps simply better documentation
around how to use Listen or Port. 

My understanding so far is this: Port implies ONLY the port you want to
listen on for incoming connections, 
whereas Listen says, listen on this interface and possibly this :port. Is
that correct? If so, why's that so hard to use?
-- 
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-796-9023
email: austin@coremetrics.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars Eilebrecht [mailto:lars@hyperreal.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 1:36 PM
> To: new-httpd@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Listen vs. Port
> 
> 
> According to Ryan Bloom:
> 
> >  You can not get rid of the Port directive.  It is an 
> important directive
> >  that is there to allow admins to configure their server to report a
> >  different port than it actually uses.  This is the exact 
> same as the
> >  ServerName directive, which is another one that can't go away.
> 
> Yes, that's true, we cannot get rid of the funtionality provided by
> the Port directive.
> But maybe we should think about a different way to configure this
> in Apache 2.0, because in some situations (e.g., you're behind
> a load balancing device or reverse proxy and need to configure a
> different name and port number for self-referencing replies
> or any CGIs using SERVER_NAME etc.). But the configuration is
> often not very intuitional.
> 
> Basically we have three different directives manimuplation
> the servername and port number in replies: ServerName, Port
> and UseCanonicalName.
> 
> I like Dean's idea to combine ServerName and Port, but then
> there's still UseCanonicalName.
> 
> How about this idea (for 2.0):
> 
> - Remove Port directive and make Listen the only directive
>   defining ports to listen on.
> 
> - Make Listen require an IP address, e.g., 123.45.67.89:80
>   if only an address is given it should default to port 80.
>   The definition of Listen should be mandatory.
> 
> - Make ServerName accept only a FQDN followed by a port
>   number as an argument, e.g., www.domain.tld:8080.
>   This value should be used for any self-referencing replies
>   and as a source for the variables SERVER_NAME, SERVER_PORT
>   SCRIPT_URI (FQDN part) and SERVER_SIGNATURE.
>   Default values should be the port number and IP address
>   from the Listen directive.
>   Add a special argument, e.g., "auto" to provide the
>   functionality of "UseCanonicalName On" (use the values
>   supplied by the client's host header).
>   (Should we continue to provide the functionality of
>    "UseCanonicalName DNS"? IMHO we should not.)
> 
> - Remove UseCanonicalName directive
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> 
> If we do these changes it might be a good idea to start
> re-thinking our virtual host configuration, especially
> the concept of main server vs. default server vs. vhost.
> 
> 
> ciao...
> -- 
> Lars Eilebrecht            - The chief cause of problems is solutions.
> lars@hyperreal.org                                     (Eric Sevareid)
> 

Mime
View raw message