Amazing. Thank you!
On 1/2/20 1:41 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Maybe you can try to implement v2 support ? Parsing v2 when v1 is already
supported is quite easy, especially at the same level of support (i.e. no
TLV field support for TLS or whatever). You can have a look at
conn_re
> > > Maybe you can try to implement v2 support ? Parsing v2 when v1 is already
> > > supported is quite easy, especially at the same level of support (i.e. no
> > > TLV field support for TLS or whatever). You can have a look at
> > > conn_recv_proxy() in haproxy:src/connection.c which supports the
Wietse Venema:
> Willy Tarreau:
> > On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 08:21:05AM +0100, Tam?s G?rczei wrote:
> > > Thanks Wietse, this is what I thought and found out during my
> > > experiments,That said, now knowing that only v1 is supported, may I ask
> > > whether you have considered implementing v2 supp
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 11:38:06AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> I have a question about the v2 protocol spec.
>
> - \x0 : LOCAL : the connection was established on purpose by the
> proxy without being relayed. The connection endpoints are the
> sender and the receiver. Such connections
I have a question about the v2 protocol spec.
- \x0 : LOCAL : the connection was established on purpose by the proxy
without being relayed. The connection endpoints are the sender and the
receiver. Such connections exist when the proxy sends health-checks to the
server. The receiver
Many thanks in advance for all your efforts in this regard, Wietse!
On 12/31/19 5:08 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Willy Tarreau:
>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 08:21:05AM +0100, Tam?s G?rczei wrote:
>>> Thanks Wietse, this is what I thought and found out during my
>>> experiments,That said, now knowing
Willy Tarreau:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 08:21:05AM +0100, Tam?s G?rczei wrote:
> > Thanks Wietse, this is what I thought and found out during my
> > experiments,That said, now knowing that only v1 is supported, may I ask
> > whether you have considered implementing v2 support? I'm about to
> > mig
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 10:34:14AM +0100, Tamás Gérczei wrote:
> Thanks Willy, I appreciate the clue and your helpful intention -
> unfortunately this isn't something I can personally do owing to lack of
> knowledge. I don't know whether the v1 implementation had been a
> community patch or somethi
Thanks Willy, I appreciate the clue and your helpful intention -
unfortunately this isn't something I can personally do owing to lack of
knowledge. I don't know whether the v1 implementation had been a
community patch or something Wietse or Viktor have done.
On 12/31/19 8:35 AM, Willy Tarreau wrot
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 08:21:05AM +0100, Tamás Gérczei wrote:
> Thanks Wietse, this is what I thought and found out during my
> experiments,That said, now knowing that only v1 is supported, may I ask
> whether you have considered implementing v2 support? I'm about to
> migrate to a setup where I'm
Thanks Wietse, this is what I thought and found out during my
experiments,That said, now knowing that only v1 is supported, may I ask
whether you have considered implementing v2 support? I'm about to
migrate to a setup where I'm behind a load balancer that only speaks v2.
Yours,
Tamás
On 12/30/19
Tam?s G?rczei:
> Hello List,
>
> I'd like to ask if PROXY protocol v2 is supported by Postfix?
It's not mentioned in documentation, therefore it is not supported.
Ditto for memcached v2 protocol.
Wietse
12 matches
Mail list logo
