Re: Anyone using transparent proxying?
> "MM" == Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: MM: Do you really run it? The way I hear it from the authors (and MM: according to my own experience) it won't work with 2.0.30 MM: either. It's broken and these guys don't know yet, how to MM: repair it. The last working version was 2.0.29. BTW, it works for me only with tcp protocol in 2.0.29. I wasn't successful with udp redirection. :-( Milan Zamazal -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
RE: Anyone using transparent proxying?
Do you really run it? The way I hear it from the authors (and according to my own experience) it won't work with 2.0.30 either. It's broken and these guys don't know yet, how to repair it. The last working version was 2.0.29. Michael -- Dr. Michael Meskes, Projekt-Manager| topsystem Systemhaus GmbH [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Europark A2, Adenauerstr. 20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 52146 Wuerselen Go SF49ers! Go Rhein Fire! | Tel: (+49) 2405/4670-44 Use Debian GNU/Linux! | Fax: (+49) 2405/4670-10 >-Original Message- >From: Nils Rennebarth [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, June 22, 1997 11:03 AM >To:Michael Meskes >Cc:Die Adresse des Empfängers ist unbekannt. >Subject: Re: Anyone using transparent proxying? > >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > >On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Michael Meskes wrote: > >>The title almost says it all. I just upgraded to pre-patch-2.0.31-2, but it >>seems transparent proxying still doesn't work. My first rule says: >> >>acc/r tcp anywhere anywhere any -> www => tproxy >I run 2.0.30, my rules (to test masquerading a single client machine only) >are: > >ipfwadm -I -a accept -P tcp -S dino.nus.de -D 0.0.0.0/0 80 -r 81 > >(Transparent proxy broken in pre 2.0.31?) > >Nils > >- -- > \ /| Nils Rennebarth >--* WINDOWS 42 *-- | Schillerstr. 61 > / \| 37083 Göttingen > | ++49-551-71626 > Micro$oft's final answer | http://www.nus.de/~nils > >-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- >Version: 2.6.3i >Charset: noconv > >iQB1AwUBM6zqTFptA0IhBm0NAQGCIAL9EUxRE0fNQa1xBhmjNzy2pBuoG8MmCv9H >ZGjH3AbQpDmf2lgc3MJuSUf/pyFZUEvKbzZJmD9v7Q/6fOfnLHbDu9++6/Bu76hs >ybMMyFzPQ980Xt83F/kk0RDvEfqsJ2SN >=m6JV >-END PGP SIGNATURE- > > >-- >TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] . >Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Anyone using transparent proxying?
2.0.31-2 does redirect traffic but does not change the port number. I am really getting sick of the way the 2.0.X series is handled. There are buggy releases but no fixed releases coming. I am considering moving to 2.1.X but then 2.1.X does not have all the features 2.0.X has. What a crazy situation! In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: : The title almost says it all. I just upgraded to pre-patch-2.0.31-2, but it : seems transparent proxying still doesn't work. My first rule says: : acc/r tcp anywhere anywhere any -> www => tproxy : but still tproxy does not get the connection. I tried to trace it but it : appears the connection is not switched to port 81 at all. : Maybe someone had more luck... : Michael : -- : Dr. Michael Meskes, Projekt-Manager| topsystem Systemhaus GmbH : [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Europark A2, Adenauerstr. 20 : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 52146 Wuerselen : Go SF49ers! Go Rhein Fire! | Tel: (+49) 2405/4670-44 : Use Debian GNU/Linux! | Fax: (+49) 2405/4670-10 : -- : TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to : [EMAIL PROTECTED] . : Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . -- --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- Please always CC me when replying to posts on mailing lists. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Anyone using transparent proxying?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Michael Meskes wrote: >The title almost says it all. I just upgraded to pre-patch-2.0.31-2, but it >seems transparent proxying still doesn't work. My first rule says: > >acc/r tcp anywhere anywhere any -> www => tproxy I run 2.0.30, my rules (to test masquerading a single client machine only) are: ipfwadm -I -a accept -P tcp -S dino.nus.de -D 0.0.0.0/0 80 -r 81 (Transparent proxy broken in pre 2.0.31?) Nils - -- \ /| Nils Rennebarth --* WINDOWS 42 *-- | Schillerstr. 61 / \| 37083 Göttingen | ++49-551-71626 Micro$oft's final answer | http://www.nus.de/~nils -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQB1AwUBM6zqTFptA0IhBm0NAQGCIAL9EUxRE0fNQa1xBhmjNzy2pBuoG8MmCv9H ZGjH3AbQpDmf2lgc3MJuSUf/pyFZUEvKbzZJmD9v7Q/6fOfnLHbDu9++6/Bu76hs ybMMyFzPQ980Xt83F/kk0RDvEfqsJ2SN =m6JV -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Anyone using transparent proxying?
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Michael Meskes wrote: > The title almost says it all. I just upgraded to pre-patch-2.0.31-2, but it > seems transparent proxying still doesn't work. My first rule says: > > acc/r tcp anywhere anywhere any -> www => tproxy > > but still tproxy does not get the connection. I tried to trace it but it > appears the connection is not switched to port 81 at all. I had transparent proxying working with a Custom build of 2.0.27 if that is any help. I used: ipfwadm -I -f ipfwadm -I -p accept ipfwadm -I -a accept -S 172.16.1.0/24 -D 172.16.1.60/0 ipfwadm -I -a accept -r 9000 -S 172.16.1.0/24 -D 0.0.0.0/0 -P tcp Which routed all connections to port 9000 which was running my custom RA tunnel program. I'm not sure both of the last lines are required though. Since I don't use it anymore haven't tried it on any newer kernels. Jason -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
