httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sander Hoentjen <>
Subject Re: An ask for eyes on proposal
Date Fri, 09 Jun 2017 13:55:19 GMT

On 06/09/2017 03:29 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Sander Hoentjen <> wrote:
>> On 06/08/2017 07:30 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>>> Hi, all;
>>> With the proposal to T&R set for Monday, I wanted to draw attention to
>>> the PROXY protocol proposal in STATUS. Just hoping for a quick review.
>>> I know it appears to be a large change, but as I worked through the
>>> feedback, ten of the commits effectively got coded out. What we are
>>> left with is essentially just the donated code + safety around IPv6 +
>>> the ability to designate subnets that do not get PROXY processing.
>> [...] I still believe it would be better to specify enabling
>> Proxy Protocol on a server, not vhost level. Because well, once you
>> enable it in one vhost it gets enabled for all vhosts using that port/ip
>> combination.
>> Here is what I said before about it:
>> Right now the patch proposes RemoteIPProxyProtocol inside a vhost config, but wouldn't
it be better (since it is connection-specific) to have something like a ProxyProtocolListen
directive? Where you say instead of:
>> ------
>> <VirtualHost>
>> RemoteIPProxyProtocol On
>> </VirtualHost>
>> ------
>> Something like:
>> ------
>> ProxyProtocolListen
>> or
>> ProxyProtocolEnable
>> ------
>> IMHO this is much cleaner than within a vhost (because that has side-effects on other
vhosts as well)
> As this lives in mod_remoteip (for better or worse) let's look at what
> context mod_remoteip is configured in; we set up a list of those local
> or global *client* IP's which we trust to provide legit x-f-f (or remote-ip
> or otherly named) true IP address header fields.
> in the PROXY protocol case, we configure which *client* IP's which
> we *require* to submit a PROXY protocol line. Right now, we do that
> as a RemoteIPProxyProtocolExceptions list of those which we do *not*
> allow to submit a PROXY protocol line. I proposed we make the config
> simpler, in theory, by listing those we will trust.
> To your example, the *global* config line;
> RemoteIPProxyProtocol  [or]
> would configure all locally routed *client* requests, irrespective of
> which by-IP vhost, to require the PROXY protocol line. Requests
> from other hosts would not process the globally routed request for a PROXY line.
Now I'm not sure if I understand you. I agree with you that a whitelist
is better than a blacklist, so adding

`RemoteIPProxyProtocol` as a list of *clients* that are allowed to use the *server/port* that
is specified in `ProxyProtocolEnable` would make sense to me.

> I think that's sufficient. But if we wanted to implement your basic
> idea, we would still have the complication that we need to infer
> whether 9001 is a http, https, or h2 listener following the PROXY
> line processing. Your proposed syntax didn't really touch on that.
No because it doesn't need to. Because proxy protocol is prepended all
that needs to be done is strip it, and store the information for later
use. So you just configure that as normal.
> It is still possible to override behavior by-vhost (ip-based, we are
> unprepared to read the TLS SNI or Host header at that point)
> but I don't see any application to do so. A given client is either
> an haproxy or similar, or it is not.
Well yes, I guess my main point is that the behaviour is set for a
server_ip:port combination, so it doesn't work for name-based virtual
hosts. That led me to the

ProxyProtocolEnable idea. 

View raw message