Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 20:14:15 +0100 (MET) From: Søren Schmidt <sos@ravenock.cybercity.dk> To: eivind@dimaga.com (Eivind Eklund) Cc: imp@village.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipdivert & masqd Message-ID: <199701301914.UAA29216@ravenock.cybercity.dk> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970130190212.00b22780@dimaga.com> from Eivind Eklund at "Jan 30, 97 07:02:14 pm"
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
In reply to Eivind Eklund who wrote:
> At 08:04 AM 1/30/97 -0700, you wrote:
> >In message <199701292038.MAA19786@freefall.freebsd.org> Darren Reed writes:
> >> It is a *much* better idea to redirect IRC to a local TCP port and process
> >> it using a proxy agent. Same could also be said for FTP.
> >
> >Yes. It is. However, you also have to do the same for Talk, Real
> >Audio and at least one other protocol that encodes either the IP
> >address or ports of the system.
>
> I'm thinking about doing transparent proxying for the protocols, but I want
> to see how well the packet-patching version run first. As it is, it is
> (hopefully) right in 99% of the cases, and it scales well. If I get
> reports of real-life problems I'll make it a priority to make proxies, but
> not before.
> (And the packet-patchers will still be an option - for most people, they
> probably are a better or as good solution.)
Hmm, I've done a NAT implementation, and my experience tells me that
doing ftp, irc, realaudio etc in the NAT itself, (I like the name
packet-patchers :) ) is the most efficient way of doing things,
and it saves the user for all that proxy fiddleing, they see the
world as if they where on the net directly...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Søren Schmidt (sos@FreeBSD.org) FreeBSD Core Team
Even more code to hack -- will it ever end
..
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701301914.UAA29216>