Laurent HENRY wrote:
>
> hi, i know it but it won't help me to solve my problem, it is not my fault
> afterall if the service provider have a poor architecture...
It's a bit default-argument-reasoning I know but :
If they have a poor architecture, then use/exploit it by methods,
nat-ing
etc. to circumvent their scheme.
If done, they have 2 choices :
- keep using a poor architecture.
OR
- implementing a better architecture concerning authorizing
remote users for accessing their services.
M.
> I don't understand why it seems it sees the X-Forwarded-for for some clients
> and not from others...
>
> For Neil, by the contacts we have, Unix clients doesn't seem to exist in his
> economic model, nothing new under the sun...
>
> Le Vendredi 24 Janvier 2003 09:49, vous avez �crit :
> > "Neil A. Hillard" wrote:
> > > Laurent,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Laurent HENRY wrote:
> > > > To answer Neal, if the provider would want to accept my proxy all would
> > > > be easier you are right, but he insists on his system of per-IP licence
> > > > !
> > >
> > > In that case, question him how he would handle a Unix box with multiple
> > > users (e.g. multiple X terminals served from it)... That would give the
> > > same problem.
> > >
> > > IP based security in this instance is too much hassle. Presumably you
> > > have to be on a permanent connection, dial-up users would not be able to
> > > access the service since most ISPs do not allocate static addresses...
> >
> > And most corporate users are behind firewalls (or at least should be..)
> > which hide their internal IP addresses, only showing a single or handful
> > IP addresses for all users from the same corporation.
> >
> > Regards
> > Henrik
--
'Time is a consequence of Matter thus
General Relativity is a direct consequence of QM
(M.E. Mar 2002)
