Re: Paying for someone else's traffic?

David J N Begley wrote:

> - my proxy should be treating "refresh" HTTP requests the same as "miss"
> requests as far as "miss_access" is concerned (so that local users can
> force a refresh, but remote proxies cannot); and,

Hmm. I seem to remember that "the ICP query does not contain any HTTP request
headers which may affect the reply."

I'm guessing here, that squid is sending a request with a conditional refresh
(IMS, etc) to a neighbour, when it is uncertain if the result will cause a
fetch. Since the ICP request carries nothing about this, other than the URL
(maybe it should?), the neighbour has little choice but to admit that yes, it
has the object.

When it's requested, however, it's ability to protest that "You didn't tell me
you wanted a _new_ one..." is only limited. It admitted to having it, but we
said the age didn't suit us.

I'd recommend either having such conditional refreshes _never_ go to
neighbours, or figure out some way to communicate desirable age-data.

> - to stop the proliferation of bogus error messages being returned to
> end-users, Squid shouldn't send "refresh" HTTP requests to neighbour
> proxies (using ICP), only to parents.
>
> Otherwise, there exists a very obvious backdoor through Squid's ACL
> mechanism that would allow someone to bypass all caching, and all
> "miss_access" ACLs thus shifting the traffic charges from one organisation
> onto another. That's Bad(tm). :-(
>
> Cheers..
>
> dave

--
Did you read the documentation AND the FAQ?
If not, I'll probably still answer your question, but my patience will
be limited, and you take the risk of sarcasm and ridicule.