3 ms·
Interesting, I wonder why they didn't go with something more self explanatory: Connection: -> X-Ignore-X:
by axod 18y ago
Interesting, I wonder why they didn't go with something more self explanatory:
Connection: -> X-Ignore-X:
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- seekely 18y agoX-Ignore-X is longer than close, which I suppose would mess up the packet length. Or maybe having an unrecognized value for the Connection key would still default to a close? Just guessing here.
- axod 18y agoI meant: Connection: close replaced with X-Ignore-X: close
- limmeau 18y agoTCP checksums are fairly simple; a TCP stack basically just sums up the 16-bit words in a packet and stores the result in the checksum field; this will not detect 16-bit words being swapped around. My guess is that the load balancer tried to invalidate the header while preserving the TCP checksum.
- axod 18y agoAh yes, forgot about the checksum field :) thx