@miconda I would mainly love some pointers as to how/where to implement this. My initial thought was to modify `handle_new_connect()` to change the connection state to `S_CONN_OK` instead of `S_CONN_ACCEPT`, and then peek the connection to see if we are getting a PROXY v1/v2 header, and the override the connection information structs. However, this obviously runs amuck of clean code, and obviously might wait a long time if the header isn't sent immediately. Would it, instead, make more sense to attempt to parse it in a fashion not unlike the `tcp_read_hep3`/`tcp_header_headers` combination in `tcp_read.c` around line 1490: ```c if(unlikely(ksr_tcp_accept_hep3!=0)) { bytes=tcp_read_hep3(con, read_flags); if (bytes>=0) { if(!(con->req.flags & F_TCP_REQ_HEP3)) { /* not hep3, try to read headers */ bytes=tcp_read_headers(con, read_flags); } } } else { bytes=tcp_read_headers(con, read_flags); } ``` So for example: ```c if(unlikely(ksr_tcp_accept_hep3!=0)) { bytes=tcp_read_hep3(con, read_flags); if (bytes>=0) { if(!(con->req.flags & F_TCP_REQ_HEP3)) { /* not hep3, try to read headers */ goto read_headers } } } else { read_headers: if (unlikely(read_proxy_protocol!=0)) { tcp_read_proxy_protocol(con, read_flags); } bytes=tcp_read_headers(con, read_flags); } ``` Obviously, the above is just imaginary pseudocode. Thoughts? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/1757#issuecomment-444910587

@teotwaki - following the hep3 handling should be a good approach, thanks for considering to contribute and working on this feature! -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/1757#issuecomment-445219326

@teotwaki - is the PROXY header sent in clear, before establishing the tls connection? If yes, then do it after accept. Regarding the patch referenced above, I haven't looked extensively at the code parsing the proxy header, but adding the new parameter looks good. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/1757#issuecomment-446513377

What would you want to have in `$Ri` and `$Rp`? They have to refer to a local socket, otherwise it may have unexpected side effects for other components. It should be at least different commits for each major component it changes. You can make it with more commits, it can be squashed from PR web interface as well. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/1757#issuecomment-447005026

@teotwaki I will also look to your code today or latest tomorrow morning and give you feedback. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/1757#issuecomment-447240867

Closed #1757. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/1757#event-2034980783