Henrik Nordström wrote:
tor 2010-04-08 klockan 20:43 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:
FWIW, the flash player and the server are somewhat broken and playing
bad games with HTTP/1.1 Range requests.
Which quite likely triggers confusion within Squid as the store/object
interface is range aware. Has been issues there in the past, and quite
likely is more issues..
Not 100% sure that response is technically broken, but it surely is an
odd response.
It claims to be cacheable but isn't.
Why isn't it?
I though Squid considered it a malformed 206 and uncachabled it.
Does squid consider the reply a malformed 206 or a malformed 200?
The extra bytes which exist in the body means we should be assuming its
a malformed 200 with unusable range headers.
If this "range" was merged into a
previous ranges of the object, or even fetched from the a full copy of
real object by any well behaved middleware proxy it would corrupt the
media transfer.
We don't know how the server would react on requests for the same URI
but with Range header..
Server may or may not provide a real range or this same output.
Regardless of that any client being smart and fetching the request as a
range of the indicated range bytes from a full copy of the object will
get different bytes from any intermediary than this reply contains.
There is no Content-Location header in the response, so merging of
responses with different url parameters MUST NOT be done by any HTTP
agent (including proxies). Content-aware merging of the data is allowed,
but that's outside HTTP.
Ah. Thanks.
Amos
--
Please be using
Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE9 or 3.1.1
