Mailing-List: contact users-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:49:19 +0100
From: Peter Schober <peter.schober@univie.ac.at>
To: users@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: port and scheme virtualization via mod_proxy_ajp
Message-ID: <20081218174919.GN25528@wssp.cc.univie.ac.at>
References: <20081218171417.GM25528@wssp.cc.univie.ac.at>
 <1404e5910812180926y7702317bt5dce18a7b71cb505@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1404e5910812180926y7702317bt5dce18a7b71cb505@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt
Organization: Vienna University Computer Center

* Eric Covener <covener@gmail.com> [2008-12-18 18:26]:
> > However, requests passed on to Apache Tomcat6 via mod_proxy_ajp don't
> > seem to be virtualized properly so Tomcat sees the request coming in
> > via http on port 80 (which is the physical scheme and port from
> > httpd, so Tomcat is not to blame here).
>
> Shot in the dark -- ProxyPreserveHost help?

Nope, the HTTP/1.1 Host: request-header field doesn't contain the
scheme, so this wouldn't be sufficient anyway?
Also in this case the request comes from the loadbalancer (which
maybe possibly could be configured to preserve this) and so only has
the hostname there (which implies port 80).

Cheers,
-peter

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org