Keith Moore wrote: > > > As to the known-probs doc, that focuses on problems of the sort that > > TCPIMPL did - errors in the implementation, not deliberately changing > > specs. > > yes, but given that there are no specs for interception proxies, > how do you judge what is and is not an error in the implementation? > or given that all interception proxies violate the IP specifications, > isn't an interception proxy by its very nature an implementation error? This is related to TCPIMPL - new modifications to TCP are not considered in the known-problems doc. Even if there are problems in the design of the modification. Joe
- Re: interception proxies Keith Moore
- Re: interception proxies Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: interception proxies Vijay Gill
- Re: interception proxies Marc Horowitz
- Re: interception proxies Vijay Gill
- Re: interception proxies John Martin
- Re: interception proxies Vernon Schryver
- Re: interception proxies Keith Moore
- Re: interception proxies Joe Touch
- Re: interception proxies Keith Moore
- Re: interception proxies Joe Touch
- Re: interception proxies Charles Lynn
- Re: interception proxies J. Noel Chiappa
- Re: interception proxies Vernon Schryver
- Re: interception proxies Salvador Vidal
- Re: interception proxies Dick St.Peters
- Re: interception proxies Keith Moore
- Re: interception proxies Joe Touch
- Source address (offtopic) Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Source address (offtopic) Matt Crawford
- Re: Source address (offtopic) Valdis . Kletnieks