Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 26108 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2000 13:35:20 -0000 Received: from smtp-abo-1.wanadoo.fr (HELO villosa.wanadoo.fr) (@193.252.19.122) by locus.apache.org with SMTP; 10 Nov 2000 13:35:20 -0000 Received: from QUASIMODO (193.251.52.232) by villosa.wanadoo.fr; 10 Nov 2000 14:35:13 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9_Salle?= To: Subject: RE: More on redirection problems Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:35:12 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <80F5674514B4D311BAFC0040F6A45EEE093826@ntserver> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > The problem is with the port info present in the host header, that is > lost, and subsituted by the local por used in the connection. Got it. :-) That could be bad in settings with port mapping (a common situation as soon as a firewall is involved). > > T32 does support HTTP/1.1 host name based virtual hosting... > > (RFC2616/19.6.1.1) > AFAIK Tomcat32 standalone, is a HTTP 1.0 Server, I agree with you. I didn't found any statement in the doc/ files as for Tomcat being either HTTP 1.0 or 1.1 compliant, though that didn't prevent implementation of features only defined in 1.1. But maybe knowing that wouldn't help that much. I didn't found anything neither, in both RFC, relevant to that issue. Did I miss something? Let says that the URI should be one that work in most cases :-), (though there were other concerns for redirections being made through absolute URI)... As far as I can say, using the host name / port name sent by the user agent is a good bet, as the request did reach Tomcat.