Re: [squid-users] persistent connections not being utilized with Chrome

On Mon, 2018-01-15 at 13:48 -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote: > > That statement does not compute in the current context: A transparent > proxy has many disadvantages over a forward/explicit proxy, Sure. But it has advantages also. > but both > transparent and forward/explicit proxies have approximat

Re: [squid-users] persistent connections not being utilized with Chrome

On Mon, 2018-01-15 at 12:26 -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote: > > What about the transparent proxy part? I already have that, but that is becoming more or less useless in the everything-https world we are heading towards since you can't transparently proxy https. AFAIU. > if Squid closed a CONNECT tu

Re: [squid-users] persistent connections not being utilized with Chrome

On Mon, 2018-01-15 at 10:56 -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 01/15/2018 08:40 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 21:34 -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote: > > > In that case, there are two HTTP connections in play: > > > > > > 1. An HTTP conn

Re: [squid-users] persistent connections not being utilized with Chrome

On Mon, 2018-01-15 at 16:06 +, Rafael Akchurin wrote: > Hello Brian, Hi, > *but* the same 200 of tabs loads just fine from FF and the same Squid > on the same machine at the same time - so might be a Chrome > issue/architecture? Interesting. I'm not sure how I would do it, but it would be i

Re: [squid-users] persistent connections not being utilized with Chrome

On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 21:34 -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote: > In that case, there are two HTTP > connections > in play: > > 1. An HTTP connection from the client to the origin server. By this do you mean to say there is a connection from the client, through the proxy server to the origin server? >

Re: [squid-users] persistent connections not being utilized with Chrome

On Sat, 2018-01-13 at 13:15 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote: > > What do you mean "not available for? I mean, will not actually result in a persistent connection -- a socket that is reused for multiple HTTP transactions. I suppose for CONNECT it would mean either multiple CONNECTs within a single soc

[squid-users] persistent connections not being utilized with Chrome

I am noticing that my Squid 3.5.20 installation is not utilizing persistent connections with a Chrome browser user. My Squid configuration is not disabling the default status of persistent connections being enabled. I can see Chrome including "Proxy-Connection: keep-alive" in it's request and Squ

Re: [squid-users] no fallback to ipv4 if ipv6 remote address is non-functional

On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 06:47 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote: > > 1) > I have confirmed my suspicion that your IPv6 routing is a bit broken. I'm not sure I agree with you entirely on that (more below)... > The IPv6 address is in a private IP range fc00::/7. Oh damn. It's a ULA address. I did not ev

Re: [squid-users] no fallback to ipv4 if ipv6 remote address is non-functional

On Sat, 2015-06-13 at 21:49 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 12/06/2015 11:48 p.m., Brian J. Murrell wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 10:13 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote: > >> > >> see <http://readlist.com/lists/squid-cache.org/squid-users/11/58405.html> > > &

Re: [squid-users] no fallback to ipv4 if ipv6 remote address is non-functional

On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 10:13 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote: > > see Of course, I did see the rest of the messages in the thread. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be seeing in that particular message though other than 3.4.3 worked

[squid-users] no fallback to ipv4 if ipv6 remote address is non-functional

At least from here, irc.bcwireless.net:6667 is non-functional (connection times out) on IPv6 but works on IPv4: # telnet irc.bcwireless.net 6667 Trying fcaa:8ef7:51b9:8f04:58f1:7364:e16e:fe2f... telnet: connect to address fcaa:8ef7:51b9:8f04:58f1:7364:e16e:fe2f: Connection timed out Trying 198.27