Re: [Sks-devel] reverse proxies and the pool

[Andy Ruddock]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> With a great number of the SKS servers already in the pool now 
> supporting a reverse proxy[a] does it make sense to make this a 
> hard-requirement for inclusion in the pool in order to increase 
> availability?
> 
> Ideally, if network traffic should increase, it could be
> interesting to setup a new subpool (to replace the current HA -
> High Availability pool) that only include load-balanced setups with
> multiple SKS servers behind a single reverse proxy.
> 
> What are your thoughts about such a move?
> 
> [a] please follow the Peer recommendations and allow every Host: 
> connection on 11371 to go through to SKS, otherwise it will break
> e.g. keys.gnupg.net.

Whatever the decision, could you provide documentation for
configuration of such a reverse proxy for both Apache and Nginx?

- -- 
Andy Ruddock
- ------------
address@hidden (OpenPGP Key ID 0xB0324245)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=p7/+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----