Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-02.txt - section 5.1

[Amos Jeffries <[e-mail]>]

On 4/05/2012 9:34 p.m., Andreas Petersson wrote:
> On Wed, 02 May 2012 14:32:59 +1200
> Amos Jeffries<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>> ** section 5.1, must it be an interface label?
>>
>> what about interception ports where the TCP details are not related to
>> the interface in any way and both details needed?

With the TPROXY/divert socket features in recent kernels replacing NAT 
there is a big disconnection of the TCP details and application 
listening port details.

For example an application can be listening on 192.168.1.1:3129  and 
receiving TCP packets with src 10.1.1.1:12345 dst 10.2.3.4:80. Which of 
the three IP:port values is best added to the header?

I know this only affects interception proxies which we dont *realy* want 
to cater for specifically. But it does bring up a clarity issue with the 
texts.

>> what about interfaces labelled with non-alphanumeric characters?

Using squid as an example:

   http_port 127.0.0.1:3128 name=localhost-3128
   http_port 127.0.0.1:3129 name=localhost-3129

"-" character is not matching the alpha-numeric ABNF requirements. Also 
the admin might have entered any UTF-8 characters from whatever language 
they use as the label.

> Hi,
>
> Can you explain how you mean/give some examples?
>
>   /andreas
>


AYJ