2020-01-08 09:59, Marvin Scholz wrote:> >> On Mon, 2020-01-06 at 10:24 +0000, user wrote: > > > > I'm consider to put icecast behind reverse proxy. It is not so easy as I > > think before. Does anyone have experience with it? > > In general putting Icecast behind a reverse proxy is not the best idea as > some webservers are not really made out of the box to easily deal with the > kind of usage Icecast will usually produce (long running connections > serving a continuous stream). Additionally Icecast is not really capable > currently do deal with being reverse-proxied properly so some things will > break when doing that. > > So unless you want to shoot yourself in the foot and run into various > issues I would not recommend to do it.Expectation on malicious activity force me to put icecast behind reverse proxy. It was not easy, but works very well. --
> On Feb 6, 2020, at 11:20 AM, user <5f787a at i2pmail.org> wrote: > > 2020-01-08 09:59, Marvin Scholz wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2020-01-06 at 10:24 +0000, user wrote: >>> >>> I'm consider to put icecast behind reverse proxy. It is not so easy as I >>> think before. Does anyone have experience with it? >> >> In general putting Icecast behind a reverse proxy is not the best idea as >> some webservers are not really made out of the box to easily deal with the >> kind of usage Icecast will usually produce (long running connections >> serving a continuous stream). Additionally Icecast is not really capable >> currently do deal with being reverse-proxied properly so some things will >> break when doing that. >> >> So unless you want to shoot yourself in the foot and run into various >> issues I would not recommend to do it. > > Expectation on malicious activity force me to put icecast behind reverse > proxy. It was not easy, but works very well. >Please explain in details how You doing this.
Good evening, On Thu, 2020-02-06 at 19:20 +0000, user wrote:> 2020-01-08 09:59, Marvin Scholz wrote: > > >> On Mon, 2020-01-06 at 10:24 +0000, user wrote: > > > > > > I'm consider to put icecast behind reverse proxy. It is not so easy as I > > > think before. Does anyone have experience with it? > > > > In general putting Icecast behind a reverse proxy is not the best idea as > > some webservers are not really made out of the box to easily deal with the > > kind of usage Icecast will usually produce (long running connections > > serving a continuous stream). Additionally Icecast is not really capable > > currently do deal with being reverse-proxied properly so some things will > > break when doing that. > > > > So unless you want to shoot yourself in the foot and run into various > > issues I would not recommend to do it. > > Expectation on malicious activity force me to put icecast behind reverse > proxy. It was not easy, but works very well.So, what kind of "malicious activity" exactly? And what exact HTTP level software is more robust against those activities than Icecast? I'm fully in support that active components on lower levels can be helpful in some situations. But I would love to hear about any analysis indicating specific request patterns that would be better handled by external software. If you would share your information rather than keeping us in the dark about specifics it would enable us to improve Icecast for all users including you. :) With best regards, -- Philipp. (Rah of PH2)