Nice. X-Forwarded-For would also allow google to deliver availability
information suitable for the actual location of the end-user. If their
software chooses to pay attention to this. Which is the objection to
server-side API requests voiced to me by a Google person. (By proxying
everything through the server, you are essentially doing what I wanted
to do in the first place but Google told me they would not allow. Ironic
if you have more luck with that then the actual client-side AJAXy
requests that Google said they required!)
Thanks for alerting us to X-forwarded-for, that's a good idea.
Joe Hourcle wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>> Wait, now ALL of your clients calls are coming from one single IP?
>> Surely that will trigger Googles detectors, if the NAT did. Keep us
>> updated though.
> I don't know what Peter's exact implementation is, but they might relax
> the limits when they see an 'X-Forwarded-For' header, or something
> else to
> suggest it's coming through a proxy. It used to be pretty common when
> writing rate limiting code to use X-Forwarded-For in place of
> HTTP_ADDR so
> you didn't accidentally ban groups behind proxies. (of course, I don't
> know if the X-Forwarded-For value is something that's not routable (in
> 10/8), or the NAT IP, so it might still look like 1 IP address behind a
> Also, by using a caching proxy (if the responses are cachable), the total
> number of requests going to Google might be reduced.
> I would assume they'd need to have some consideration for proxies, as I
> remember the days when AOL's proxy servers channeled all requests through
> less than a dozen unique IP addresses. (or at least, those were the only
> ones hitting my servers)
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
rochkind (at) jhu.edu