-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 137
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[connect-tcp] Adjust rules for target_host and target_port #2736
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@MikeBishop The discussion at IETF 119 leaned toward removing the multiple-IP mode entirely. Are you suggesting that we should keep it? |
This PR contains two changes; I'm not making a suggestion with regard to multiple-IP mode, but I think aligning the variable names in the template makes sense. Did both get dropped, or is that being discarded because it's in the same PR? |
OK, I've updated this PR to also drop the multiple-IP support entirely. |
|
||
Classic HTTP CONNECT proxies can be used to reach a target host that is specified as a domain name or an IP address. However, because only a single target host can be specified, proxy-driven Happy Eyeballs and cross-IP fallback can only be used when the host is a domain name. For IP-targeted requests to succeed, the client must know which address families are supported by the proxy via some out-of-band mechanism, or open multiple independent CONNECT requests and abandon any that prove unnecessary. | ||
|
||
## Overview |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Given that target_host
can contain either an IP address or a DNS name, this text still seems relevant to the overall doc. Is the removal deliberate, or was the text relocated?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is deliberately removed, as it's no longer a problem that this draft attempts to address.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the updates based on the discussion at 119
Changes:
Fixes #2713 and #2714