Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 09:45:38 +1100 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" <danny@panda.hilink.com.au> To: Charles Mott <cmott@srv.net> Cc: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>, Eivind Eklund <eivind@dimaga.com>, brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk, archie@whistle.com, hackers@freebsd.org, ari.suutari@ps.carel.fi Subject: Re: ipdivert & masqd Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970130092043.13981L-100000@panda.hilink.com.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970129134431.969D-100000@darkstar>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Charles Mott wrote: > In theory, one can construct cases where the FTP logic in the packet > aliasing software won't work (IP fragmenting a PORT command, or where the > PORT command is split between TCP packets with different sequence numbers, > or where the PORT command is in the middle of a packet, and so forth). > > In practice, these situations are not seen, and the packet aliasing > software works for FTP. The system loading is very low, and the software > easily scales to situations where there are large numbers of users. > > I don't know about IRC, but my guess is that the real situation is simpler > than the theoretical. Whatever Linux does to handle IRC, I am told that > it looks fairly similar to what one does for FTP. People coding these in-stream proxies might also like to look at the slirp code <http://blitzen.canberra.edu.au/~danjo/>; There are quite a few transparent proxies in there. Danny
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.970130092043.13981L-100000>