________________________________
> From: Amos Jeffries <squ...@treenet.co.nz>
>To: squid-users@squid-cache.org
>Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013 4:15 PM
>Subject: Re: [squid-users] Re: TPROXY
>
>
>On 28/05/2013 8:11 p.m., Amm wrote:
>> ________________________________
>>> From: alvarogp <alvarix...@gmail.com>
>>> To: squid-users@squid-cache.org
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013 1:28 PM
>>> Subject: [squid-users] Re: TPROXY
>>>
>>>
>>> alvarogp wrote:
>>>> If Squid is running, the packets from the local LAN are routed correctly
>>>> and the web pages are showed perfectly. The problem I have is that this
>>>> accesses are not reflected in the access.log and cache.log, so could be
>>>> possible that squid is not caching any cacheable content?
>> I have had exact same problem when I was trying TPROXY with similar
>> configuration.
>>
>> Squid would route packets but not LOG anything in access log.
>>
>> If I stop squid then clients cant access any website. (this indicates that
>> packets are indeed routing through squid).
>
>access.log would indicate that none of them are actually making it to
>the Squid process.
>
>Perhapse the Ubuntu kernel version has a bug which makes the packets
>work when *some* process it listening on the required port, but the
>packets actually not getting there.
Actually I had tried on Fedora 16 kernel version is 3.6.X.
So now this bug is in Ubuntu as well as Fedora?
Dont remember squid version but it was 3.2 series.
>Or perhapse TCP packets are sending the HTTP reuqest through Squid and
>Squid relaying it but the response not going back to Squid (direct back
>to client). In that event Squid would wait for some time (read/write
>timeouts are 15 minutes long) before logging the failed HTTP
>transaction. That could be caused by some bad configuration on a router
>outside of the Squid machine.
May be, I dont know what was happening. As I didnt give it much thought that
time.
I will try again this week end and report back. This time I will wait for 15
minutes.
Thanks
Amm.
