x-forwarded-for

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <451819FA.1060802 at litespeedtech.com>, "xing at litespeedtech.com" write
s:
>Source: http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/changeset/1121
>
>It appears it's missing a condition where varnish need to rewrite/append 
>to the x-forwarded-for header if it already exists in the incoming http 
>request instead of outputting a new/duplicate header.

According to RFC2616 multiple headers append, they don't replace
each other.

So:
	X-Forewarded-for: 10.0.0.2, 10.0.0.3
and
	X-Forewarded-for: 10.0.0.2
	X-Forewarded-for: 10.0.0.3

should have the same semantic meaning.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.