sön 2006-11-12 klockan 18:00 +0545 skrev Tek Bahadur Limbu:
> What about clients having real static IP addresses who are behind a
> squid proxy?
Yes? It's what the scheme is designed for.
The private shadow network is only used between the proxy and the NAT
box..
Regards
Henrik
signature.asc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Henrik,
What about clients having real static IP addresses who are behind a
squid proxy?
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 12:31:28 +0100
Henrik Nordstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> lör 2006-11-11 klockan 21:52 +0545 skrev Tek Bahadur Limbu:
> > Adrian,
lör 2006-11-11 klockan 21:52 +0545 skrev Tek Bahadur Limbu:
> Adrian,
>
> What about FreeBSD? I understand that Tproxy is only for Linux. Is there
> a workaround for FreeBSD?
The NAT approach to the problem using a private shadow network 1-1
mapped with the real addresses always works, but there
lör 2006-11-11 klockan 12:36 +0800 skrev Ow Mun Heng:
> That's the only good thing about tproxy support? That seems a bit
> little.(to me anyway)
Some consider it extremely important, to most it doesn't matter at all.
Regards
Henrik
signature.asc
Description: Detta är en digitalt signerad medd
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006, Tek Bahadur Limbu wrote:
> Adrian,
>
> What about FreeBSD? I understand that Tproxy is only for Linux. Is there
> a workaround for FreeBSD?
Not at the moment. I've heard mumblings from the FreeBSD crowd that its possible
but I haven't had time to investigate.
Adrian
Adrian,
What about FreeBSD? I understand that Tproxy is only for Linux. Is there
a workaround for FreeBSD?
On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 14:59 +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2006, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
>
> > > You will still have the same TCP/IP protocol issues if not more.
> > > The only pr
On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 14:59 +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2006, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
>
> > > You will still have the same TCP/IP protocol issues if not more.
> > > The only problem it might solve is access those sites not happy when a
> > > user changes IP when going from http to http
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> > You will still have the same TCP/IP protocol issues if not more.
> > The only problem it might solve is access those sites not happy when a
> > user changes IP when going from http to https.
>
> That's the only good thing about tproxy support? That see
On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 00:37 +0100, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> lör 2006-11-11 klockan 00:11 +0800 skrev Ow Mun Heng:
> > Perhaps I just don't get it. I just upgraded to 2.6.3 and then all of a
> > sudden, I read baout this TPROXY feature.
> > It enables client and server ip spoofing and it basically
lör 2006-11-11 klockan 00:11 +0800 skrev Ow Mun Heng:
> Perhaps I just don't get it. I just upgraded to 2.6.3 and then all of a
> sudden, I read baout this TPROXY feature.
> It enables client and server ip spoofing and it basically bypasses the
> cache (so as to make it really really transparent et
10 matches
Mail list logo
