Re: [GnomeMeeting-devel-list] Transparent proxies

El sáb, 24-01-2004 a las 17:36, Damien Sandras escribió:
> Probably easier to run Apache on a different port on, what
> do you think?
That is just a hack. I think we should try manty's solution, and if that
works stick with it. If it doesn't, try a hack.
After all, looking for those three headers can't be that difficult.
> Le sam 24/01/2004 à 13:38, Miguel Rodríguez Pérez a écrit :
> > I put a little script at that
> > returns:
> > ip1: if it exists, the value of HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR
> > ip2: if it exists, the value of HTTP_CLIENT_IP
> > ip3: if it exists, the value of REMOTE_ADDR
> > 
> > TheBonsai got an invaled value for ip1 (, no value for ip2 and
> > a correct one for ip3.
> > manty got two values for ip1 (he sees to transparent proxies), a correct
> > one for ip2 and the proxy address for ip3.
> > I get correct values for both ip1 and ip2, and the proxy address for
> > ip3.
> > 
> > I suggest looking for ip2 and using it if that exists. If it doesn't
> > just trust ip3.
> > In any case, as an additional measure, use tcp connection address for
> > reouting udp traffic, and just use the cgi ip for the ils directory.
> > 
> > A more elaborate proposal comes from manty:
> > " check the IPs (as there may be many) in IP1 and get only those that
> > are public, I mean, filter those that are private out of there." Then
> > choose the first public one. If there are none, check ip2, and finally
> > ip3.
> > 
> > Comments?
Miguel Rodríguez Pérez <migrax terra es>

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]