Forum Discussion
hooleylist
Jan 09, 2010Cirrostratus
Reading RFC2616 for the 302 status, it looks like the response should not be cached unless the server explicitly sets a cache-control header telling the proxy to do so:
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2616.txt
10.3.3 302 Found
The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI.
Since the redirection might be altered on occasion, the client SHOULD
continue to use the Request-URI for future requests. This response
is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or Expires header
field.
I assume LTM does not set any cache-control headers in the fallback response. If that's true, why did the Google Search Appliance cache the fallback host 302 response?
I think sending a 302 with cache-control headers set appropriately is a clean solution in terms of the client receiving a correct response code and any caching proxies not caching the temporary response.
Maybe the cache-control: no-cache header is something that LTM should set by default when the fallback host is used if it turns out that some proxies incorrectly cache the response with no cache-control header.
Aaron