jshttp/proxy-addr has resolved the issue that justifies this fork

[theneva]

Hi there! 👋

This isn't really a feature proposal, but none of the issue templates really fit, and since it's very repo-specific I don't think it fits in the help repo.

The jshttp forwarded issue linked as justification in this fork's README was recently resolved in the forwarded module (jshttp/forwarded#9) and released as version 0.2.0.

It was pulled into the jshttp proxy-addr module in jshttp/proxy-addr@1cdd2f7#diff-648afe3d986261d8f2015b2b131b0e4a448d4dc6946cfde1a7a836876cee255eR4-R5 and included in proxy-addr version 2.0.7.

This might mean there's no need to maintain this fork anymore, and I figured I'd give you a heads-up 😄

[mcollina]

Thanks for letting us know! The key question is how long it would take to release new version of those modules if a need arises to do so.

@fastify/core wdyt?

[jsumners]

I'm not sure. I think it depends on how responsive upstream is being recently across all maintained projects.

[RafaelGSS]

I think it depends on how responsive upstream is being recently across all maintained projects.

Indeed. I'm 100% to deprecated this fork once upstream is ahead of it.

[kibertoad]

I agree. And we can always fork again if need be.

[mcollina]

Can you open a PR to move back to the original module in Fastify?

[theneva]

I don't have an even somewhat complete overview of the Fastify project, but I sent fastify/fastify#3115 and it seems to work 😄

[theneva]

That was quick! Fastify now uses the original proxy-addr module instead of this fork. Are there any other downstream projects that need updating?

By the way, I'm not suggesting anything more drastic than maybe updating the readme and archiving this repo 😅 I definitely think the repo should still be available (as opposed to deleted) since documentation since older versions of Fastify depend on i

[mcollina]

I'm not going to archive or delete this repo. However I'd be happy to merge a change on the README. would you like to send one?

[Uzlopak]

I worked on this package and I think there are still parts, where we can improve the performance. With my PR #52 we should already get perf gains.

[kibertoad]

@Uzlopak Maybe we should try to contribute them upstream as well?

[Uzlopak]

I am not interested into contributing this to upstream, because I expect that PRs will get merged in 2027.

[gurgunday]

I agree with not deprecating since in the future we might need to fork and continue again

But should we at least archive this package?

Asking for the v5 updates

[Uzlopak]

No! We use this package in other plugins and our fork is faster than the original. Also i think we have possible huge performance gains. And i mean huge. But we have no resources, to improve it.

Imho we have a bottleneck in fastify, when we need the Feature of this library. When we benchmark we never benchmark with a real world example. In the realworld we would use dockerized instances of fastify servers, and before then a load balancer. So if we set trustproxy then request.ip will be processed by this plugin, as it needs to find the first acceptable ip. For this it processes the IPs, etc.. this is expensive. And to be honest repetetive. So i expect a huge performance drop in a case were we are using trustproxy and send the request.ip back as response.

There are two ways to improve this:

1. Use a modified b*-trie like find my way, where we modify it to handle netmasks properly, or
2. Cache the valid cases and look them up instead of processing them all the time.

But till today nobody complained about this potential perf bottleneck. Maybe I am fantasizing this issue. Or maybe nobody sees this issue.

A benchmark script would be interesting.

Upstream is basically dead end and thanks to the xz fiasko the maintainer is not willing to give the maintenance to others.

[gurgunday]

I see, thanks for the explanation

I guess this specific issue can be closed then? :)