Hello!

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Maxim Dounin <mdounin@mdounin.ru> wrote:

> Hello!
>
> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 11:24:33PM +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
>
> > Il 08/05/2012 21:39, Maxim Dounin ha scritto:
> > > [...]
> > >> Blew is patch(for Nginx trunk) to use 429 replace 400 when request
> header
> > >> is too large,
> > >> and use 431 replace 503 when find too many request(limit_req module).
> in
> > >> addition to add new http status code 511.
> > >
> > > There are no plans to replace returned status codes in near
> > > future, at least not before we have clear understanding of effects
> > > of new codes on behaviour of various clients.
> > >
> > > And in case of limit_req/limit_conn this might happen at all due
> > > to compatibility reasons: there are lots of configs out there
> > > which expect 503 to be returned.
> > >
> >
> > For limit_req/limit_conn this should not be a problem, since the error
> > code to return can be made configurable.
>
> It can be, but I'm not sure there are benefits (and the default
> should be kept the same anyway). If one wants to return any
> specific code, error_page might be used to change the code.
>
> Moreover, use of 429 in case of non-client-specific limits (that
> is, even if you use $remote_addr for limiting as NATs are common,
> not even talking about resource-specific limits, e.g. based on
> $server_name) looks flawed for me from standards point of view, as
> the status should be really 5xx, not 4xx.
>
> Maxim Dounin
>
> _______________________________________________
> nginx-devel mailing list
> nginx-devel@nginx.org
> http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx-devel
>


I got it, thanks for your replay.

--
do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was
once eccentric.
_______________________________________________
nginx-devel mailing list
nginx-devel@nginx.org
http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx-devel