the fast, reliable localhost tunneling solution

CNAME and pagekite 'signature'

2012-07-02, 22:50

Hi everyone. First : very nice project you've got here. I'm considering subscribing for both personal (OwnCloud and so) and 'public' (private group or totally public) usages. Playing with my free trial, I saw that when my server was down (on purpose : private computer), PageKite directed communications to a default page (explaining server might be unavailable due to deconnection and so). My question is the following. Supposing you'd have a domain name of your own, would PageKite services still reveal themselves when connection fails ? Not that hiding it is my main concern, but I'm wondering how far would this abstraction layer be true... And I'm not skilled enough to understand how this reverse-proxy would deal with such a situation... Please don't refrain technical explanations. Again, congratulation on your work. M


  1. Bjarni RĂșnar Einarsson said on 2012-07-03, 22:34
    Hello M!

    Yes, even if you use your own domain, we will show the explanation page when connections fail. We have considered making this page customizable but so far we haven't heard much demand for that feature. It's useful to us to know that you care about this, it does affect our planning. Out of curiosity, would you want full control over the "kite unavailable" page, or would a page without the branding suffice for your needs?
  2. M said on 2012-07-05, 17:10
    Thank you very much for answering my question. This sure is a low-priority need and you'd be right to first concentrate on 'active' features. PageKite is a very nice tool and I'm just exploring the limits of the playground. That being said, it seems to me that such a feature (wheter you use a domain or not) would fit the PageKite 'spirit' (as I understand it) : being able to stand as an invisible tool if configured for it -even with an unactive server- would make it a perfect reverse proxy. I think this page should be default. And maybe one could check an option on his account for an alternative more generic page. I'm not sure about full control over this page. Liking 'full control', at first it looked like a logical developpement of the above. Yet, this would involve that you'd host some [tiny] content and 'serve' it ; and to my mind you shouldn't : you should stay on 'just' tunnelling... and maybe offer advanced configuration for generic behaviour...
    Best regards

Leave a comment

( (Please leave these blank: )

We use Gravatar for commenter's photos. Get your own, it's free!