That looks right on - thanks for the pointer ! I couldn't tell from the brief gander I took - works the same for 'server-template' as for 'server' ?
On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 2:53 AM Aleksandar Lazic <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi. > > Am 27.07.2019 um 00:24 schrieb Jim Freeman: > > For outgoing TLS connections, might haproxy be taught to use a reasonable > > default/implicit value 'sni' [1] expression/behavior that would 'first > do no > > harm'[2], and usually be correct, in the absence of an explicit > expression ? > > (Understood that haproxy depends on an SSL lib) > > > > E.g.; req.hdr(host) if it is set, else server(-template) <address> (if > it is > > cfg'd as name, not IP), else ssl_fc_sni for bridged HTTPS, else ... ? > > > > If SNI [3] is used vs. an endpoint that doesn't require/utilize it, is > it always > > innocuous ? > > > > Are increasing demands by service providers that clients (e.g.; haproxy > vs. an > > SSL endoint) send SNI inevitable? Or is some alternative pending? > > I think this is similar Ideas as the vhost patch intend to solve. > > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg34532.html > > I think the patch should be adopted for `mode tcp` also, jm2c. > > > Just wondering, > > ...jfree > > Best Regards > Aleks > > > [1] http://cbonte.github.io/haproxy-dconv/1.9/configuration.html#sni > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle > > [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication > > > > > >
