Re: LINUX "Proxy"
I have used socks, and ipmasq and transproxy (just to toss another one into
the pile)
If you are only after ftp or http proxying then squid or transproxy or
socks is possibly the way to go, although if you are connecting through a
modem from the linux box to your ISP, you may be better off setting up your
linux box as a masquerade host, and use your ISP's high speed proxy server,
after all a modem is not a megabit link.
If you wish to use IRC Chat programs, or ICQ and the like... Masquerading
is the way to go. As far as I am aware a proxy can't handle them.
I am of the opinion that socks and proxy servers will be slower than
ipmasq, as the proxy actually makes the request on your behalf, whereas
ipmasq merely changes the header and passes the message through.
I have 5 machines here at work hooked through a 486 DX2 66 and although it
can get slow at times when three people are hammerring it, and is adequate.
You can only squeeze so much info through a modem, so the speed of you
box will not be a stumbling block. Ipmasq will run quite adequately on a
486 DX2 50.
I also use ipmasq at home with 3 machines hooked to it.
Ian
----------
> From: Jay D. Winks <ntmstr@mindspring.com>
> To: pman@mindspring.com
> Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: LINUX "Proxy"
> Date: Tuesday, 17 March 1998 1:58
>
> PMan:
>
> Well, out of the five responses I got from a post in the debian users
> group, I got four mentions of IPMasq, and two mentions of a proxy called
> SQUID. Nobody even mentioned SOCKS, but I have definitely heard of it
> from my many run-throughs of NT configuration. Which way do y'all have
> it set up at your home? Remember that we will have three users instead
> of the two, and would usually prefer to use the proxy than a straight
> dial-up. Just what quality connections could we expect to get out of the
> following system:
>
>
> Thanks.
> Jay Winks
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: