Should use the rightmost ip in x-forwarded-for, if used at all about limiter HOT 7 CLOSED

Just tell if its interesting that i make a PR into this repo from this MaindeckAS@a8425b3

from limiter.

Hello,

As described here (https://github.com/ulule/limiter#limiter-behind-a-reverse-proxy) you should use what is best for your network topology. That's why it's disabled by default.

But word of caution, if you use the rightmost IP in the header you could rate limit your load balancer or CDN.

Just tell if its interesting that i make a PR into this repo [...]

No thank you, I plan to make a customizable system for the next major version.
I just need to find the motivation for this, I haven't been active recently.

from limiter.

But thank you for mentioning your fork, I may use it when (or if) I'll implement a rightmost ip parser.

from limiter.

But word of caution, if you use the rightmost IP in the header you could rate limit your load balancer or CDN.

No, because aws alb appends client ip to XFF header. I dont know from where you have this idea, but its not valid in aws :) but no stress

from limiter.

btw the most funny part is i might not need to use this fix at all. Because i made a middleware that fixes XFF header to rightmost. So i can use all kinds of libraries like this without caring too much

from limiter.

No, because aws alb appends client ip to XFF header. I dont know from where you have this idea, but its not valid in aws :)

As said before, that depend of your network topology: not everyone use AWS.
You could have an nginx with a public ip and then other nginx inside a VLAN, private network or an hypervisor that routes that to the correct VM / containers.

from limiter.

Yep, you are right :) Ill close this now, but feel free to use as inspiration, or not. I am currently using another solution for this problem.

from limiter.