Allow federation to re-use existing port on separate domain #858
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This change makes it possible to run federation over the same port
that Matrix clients use (for example port 443). However, it is
necessary to use another subdomain for the vhost.
Example configuration:
matrix_server_fqn_matrix_federation: "matrix-federation.{{ matrix_domain }}"
matrix_federation_public_port: 443
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This pull request makes it possible to run federation over the same port that Matrix clients use (for example port 443). However, it is necessary to use another subdomain for the vhost.
Example configuration:
This pull request is still work-in-progress, please do not merge yet.
During development I wondered why the matrix-nginx-proxy role uses different ports when
matrix_nginx_proxy_enabledisfalse.As I did not understand the purpose, I also did not copy this behavior in this pull request.
Shouldn't nginx be fully disabled, in this case?