Re: Summary of Transparent proxy/How-to

From: Erik T. Brandsberg <>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 19:54:33 -0600 (CST)

As for the users where there is no host field (remember, it doesn't strip
or change the host field, just the http:// more matches the desired host),
then sites that require a host field will never work anyway--because they
operate on the host field. The rewrite ONLY applies when the request
itself starts with "/", i.e. it isn't a proxy style request to start with,
and will TRY to use the host field. One IP/Multi servers works fine as
every domain gets cached unto itself, and the "bad" requests without a
host field will be cached by themselves.

Erik Brandsberg
CIO, The Link

On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

> Erik T. Brandsberg wrote:
> > sites that require the Host field. The main drawback of this is that
> > squid uses "" for caching, thus sites with
> > several IP addresses will get redundantly cached, reducing hit rates.
> > Virtual configurations override the host header in the stock squid,
> > thus it won't fill in the server name in the rewritten URL.
> If you haven't noticed already, this breaks virtual servers using the
> Host: header (one IP but many server names). And Squid running as a
> transparent proxy needs to have both Host: header support, and virtual
> IP support enabled (which is not possible in stock Squid 1.1.18), or the
> users will be very confused (and angry) when accessing virtual servers.
> The problem is that if you have two servers, both using the same IP
> a.b.c.d
> a.b.c.d
> Then if one of your "transparent proxied" users requests
> it will be cached as http://a.b.c.d/. If then
> another user requests it will generade a cache hit on
> http://a.b.c.d/ and the user will see the page instead.
> And if you only enable Host: header support, you will break older
> clients which don't use the Host: header.
> So you need both fully working, in order to keep your customers happy.
> ---
> Henrik Nordström
Received on Tue Dec 09 1997 - 17:56:59 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:37:53 MST