You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When making oubound rest calls we have a requirement to use the NAT IP address instead of the actual host name. When making such calls for SNI enabled servers currently we would need a provision to set server_name in the request for the TLS /SSL handshake to pass.
Currently if the request is made using IP address server_name is not passed in the extension.
An ability to use the HOST name header to inject host_name in the SNI extension can be evaluated as follows . Currently the SNI is derived from the request uri as requestUri.getHost() in NettyConnector.
Following code resolved setting Sni using host name header set in the request:
When making oubound rest calls we have a requirement to use the NAT IP address instead of the actual host name. When making such calls for SNI enabled servers currently we would need a provision to set server_name in the request for the TLS /SSL handshake to pass.
Currently if the request is made using IP address server_name is not passed in the extension.
An ability to use the HOST name header to inject host_name in the SNI extension can be evaluated as follows . Currently the SNI is derived from the request uri as requestUri.getHost() in NettyConnector.
Following code resolved setting Sni using host name header set in the request:
if((nettyRequest.headers().contains("Host"))) {
hdr = nettyRequest.headers().get(HttpHeaderNames.HOST);
}
SslHandler sslHandler = jdkSslContext.newHandler(ch.alloc(),hdr==null? requestUri.getHost():hdr,
(port <= 0) ? 443 : port, NettyConnector.this.executorService);
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: