Hmmm...
Let me try to assess your network...

Everything looks in order except for the bypass. If you bypass
all 10.2.0.x addresses then surely you wouldn't need Authoxy. What
do you mean you bypass all proxy settings? Do you simply
pass ALL packets through the firewall?
If so then you are not using a proxy server per se.

If this is the case, what happens to packets from say 10.2.2.44:80 going to
10.2.0.2:80, your proxy server? Do they get processesed in any way - accounts,
NAT translated at this stage, virus,filtered, or restricted?

Do you have to send everything to 10.2.0.2:8080? Do they get processed in
any way apart from NAT?

You said that you have set every proxy in the control panel,
you didn't set the automatic proxy configuration as well did you?


As a matter of interest, there may be a clash between ports.
I did notice something like this ages ago and didn't follow it up.
Pressure of other work I'm afraid.
Try setting the internal/authoxy proxy port for HTTP to something different
say 8081 rather than 8080. Then reset the browser so go through 8081
as well. This isolates the port-to-port interaction. I remember trying
8080:8080 myself and failing but thats not to say it doesn't work. At the
time I suspect I had other things not happening.

Yes Windows domain name - sad though that may be.

Bruce.


>Hi Bruce--
>
>I'll have to verify on Monday when I'm back in the office, but it seemed
>>10x slower. Just www.google.com took 30 seconds to finally load the
>graphics. Usually instantaneous.
>
>I have a fixed IP of 10.2.2.44 on our network. Our DNS server is 10.2.0.1.
>Every proxy in the Network control panel is set to 127.0.0.1:8080. We bypass
>all proxy settings for 10.2.0.* on our network.
>
>In Authoxy, our proxy is 10.2.0.2:8080. It says Authoxy will run on port
>8080. I believe my local web server is disabled. When I enable Authoxy, it
>says "one daemon running on 127.0.0.1 port 8080," no errors in the message
>window. I have NTLM authentication enabled, and I believe I have the correct
>domain entered (wouldn't I get NO connection if the domain name were
>incorrect? But I do get a connection). [This is a Windows domain, not a
>domain name, right?] And I looked up the name of my powerbook for NTLM using
>my Windows machine (sstratpbook).
>
>Anything smell fishy? Thanks for any help you can give.
>
>--Steve
>
>
>
>On 9/3/04 7:48 PM, "bruce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Suspect that you have miss configured the paths to authoxy.
>> Can you test the speed of the direct link to your MS proxy server using say
>> Internet Explorer and then do the same via authoxy using say Safari.
>> We run Authoxy on a number of machines from a G3-500 powerBook (mine!!)
>> to G4 powerBooks of the students(!!) without any speed impact. Also
>> on an iBook-500 - goes well.
>>
>> Have you included HTTP and HTTPS but a direct link for FTP?
>>
>> Have you got a clash of port 80 or 8080 on the powerBooks, for example
>> have you enabled the local server on the powerBook. 127.0.0.1:80
>> is localhost.
>>
>> Have you enabled NTLM authentication with the correct domain name.
>> Separate the proxy port (suggest 8080) from the MSProxy server port 80)
>>
>> We too are running 100Mb links and authoxy works well... won't comment
>> about the rest of the (Windows managed) network.
>>
>> Let us know,
>> Cheers from downUnder
>> Bruce Stephens,
>> Melbourne
>> Australia.
>>
>>
>>
>>>     Hi I m new here
>>>
>>> I m one of the few Mac people here where I work, in a Microsoft network
>>> environment, running OS X latest on my PowerBook G4 867
>>>
>>> Looking for ways to raise the level of compatibility, found Authoxy
>>>
>>> Installed successfully
>>>
>>> Question: Seems slow. Are there ways/tricks for speeding things up? Our
>>> network is 100baseT so it s not slow when I connect directly to our proxy
>>> server.
>>>
>>> --Steve
>>>
>>> ------------------------
>>> Steven J. Stratford, Ph.D.
>>> Professor, Maranatha Baptist Bible College
>>> Director of Institutional Research
>>> 745 W. Main St.
>>> Watertown, WI  53098
>>> 920-206-2337
>>> ------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>>



Reply via email to