Shachar Shemesh wrote:
>
> Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
>
> > And once again I must say: "Don't think so 3rd layer, JeanLuke".
>
> I am not, number 1.
hehehe... I think in the moviwe it was the Borg Queen that said that ;-)
> > I was about to explain how to build a 2d level (OSI) bridiging proxy b
guy keren wrote:
> _if_ at all one needs NAT for that... or NAT in _any_ classical sense of
> the word (according to your broad definitions, any using of a proxy server
> is actually an introduction of NAT, since not the original machine's
> addres is being shown in the FROM address of the pack
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> > maybe you should start thinking then ;) . if a "regular router" = cisco -
> > then, yes, it can do that, and much more (depending on the version of its
> > IOS).
>
> Maybe, but not as explained in your email.
actually, _exactly_ as explained in m
Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> And once again I must say: "Don't think so 3rd layer, JeanLuke".
I am not, number 1.
>
> I was about to explain how to build a 2d level (OSI) bridiging proxy but
> someone already did:
> http://perso.wanadoo.fr/magpie/EtherDivert.html
>
> No extra hop, no need for an
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> You will find that your solution forwards ALL outbound packets to the proxy
> machine. Not just those aimed at port 80. You are then left with my original
> problem - I don't want to penalise the entire office traffic with an extra hop
> (actually - extra two hops and a
Hi Guy and everyone,
guy keren wrote:
> maybe you should start thinking then ;) . if a "regular router" = cisco -
> then, yes, it can do that, and much more (depending on the version of its
> IOS).
Maybe, but not as explained in your email.
>
>
> this will done done with no address translation
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> What I see here is that I need to install on my router a rule that says,
> more or less, "If the packet is destined to go to port 80 of any
> machine, route it to the proxy, otherwise, route it usually". I don't
> think a regular router can do such a
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
>
> Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> > You know what, it's a border line case. Let's call it a draw ;-)
>
> Actually, I don't believe in draws. Either I need to route all my traffic through
> the linux machine, or I don't. If I do - I don't care whether NAT is being
> employed
Gavrie Philipson wrote:
> GWhatever you call it, it's not something specific to Linux. I have no
> experience with Checkpoint firewalls (IIRC, that's what Shachar
> mentioned), but surely they can redirect a packet from one port to
> another one?
>
> Gavrie.
>
> --
> Gavrie Philipson
> Netmor A
Gavrie Philipson wrote:
> Whatever you call it, it's not something specific to Linux. I have no
> experience with Checkpoint firewalls (IIRC, that's what Shachar
> mentioned), but surely they can redirect a packet from one port to
> another one?
>
> Gavrie.
>
> --
> Gavrie Philipson
> Netmor Ap
Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
>
> Ah... but this page specifically (item #7) instruct the seekers of
> transparent proxies to turn on the *kernel* IPchains firewalling/NAT
> code on and use it's transparent proxy option. What this option does is
> rewriting packets going through the machine (the "for
> Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> >
> > Gavrie Philipson wrote:
> > >
> > > Why would the router have to perform NAT? It just has to block outgoing
> > > connections to port 80, and reroute them to the port that Squid listens
> > > on.
> >
> > Routing the packets meant for the remote web server to the
Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
>
> Gavrie Philipson wrote:
> > Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> > > Doesn't that require that the router handling all the traffic be a NAT
> > > machine? At our place we currently have a CheckPoint FW-1 firewall, and I am
> > > not sure that it supports transperant proxying (thou
Gavrie Philipson wrote:
> Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> > Doesn't that require that the router handling all the traffic be a NAT
> > machine? At our place we currently have a CheckPoint FW-1 firewall, and I am
> > not sure that it supports transperant proxying (though it is quite possible
> > that it d
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Doesn't that require that the router handling all the traffic be a NAT
> machine? At our place we currently have a CheckPoint FW-1 firewall, and I am
> not sure that it supports transperant proxying (though it is quite possible
> that it does, Linux isn't the only solutio
Gavrie Philipson wrote:
> If you have a large number of clients to configure, setting up a
> transparent proxy is the way to go. This way, nothing has to be
> configured on the clients at all. I use such a proxy at our company, and
> use it to filter banner ads too BTW.
> Docs to configure Squi
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Erez Doron wrote:
>
> > hi
> >
> > I have a linux proxy (squid) and a linux dhcpd.
> >
> > how do i config a client MSIE to automaticaly find the proxy ?
>
> See the squid docs for some information about client autoconfiguration
> (works for netscap
- Computer Dpt.
+972-3-6901415
+972-52-562237
~
- Original Message -
From: "Erez Doron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "ILUG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 11:02 AM
Subject: MSIE automatic proxy config
> hi
>
>
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Erez Doron wrote:
> hi
>
> I have a linux proxy (squid) and a linux dhcpd.
>
> how do i config a client MSIE to automaticaly find the proxy ?
See the squid docs for some information about client autoconfiguration
(works for netscape and IE). For me this (together with a sa
hi
I have a linux proxy (squid) and a linux dhcpd.
how do i config a client MSIE to automaticaly find the proxy ?
thanks
erez
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g.,
20 matches
Mail list logo
