Proxy Servers vs IP Masquerade

[glenn at aoi.ultranet.com (Glenn Burkhardt)]

> In a previous episode Glenn Burkhardt said...
> :: 
> :: On a tangential topic, why would anyone want to use proxy services when
> :: IP masquerading was available?
> 
> * l4 switches are a massive layering violation.
> 
This only seems important if you're an OSI network theorist.  I've never 
seen a real network that fits the OSI model.  Each real network I've seen
does other things for valid reasons.

> * the l3 end-to-end design of the network is impt.

> a more interesting question in my mind is why would you want
> transparent servicing/redirection of any kind of protocol? I can only
> think of one answer: automatic client configuration. Frankly there are
> much better ways to do service discovery and I certainly hope that it
> becomes the norm for this class of problem.
> 
> -P

I don't really have an opinion of my own yet - it's forming.  But automatic
client configuration seems like a big win to me, as do the performance
improvements of IP masquerading over proxy servers.  There's also the advantage
of automatic building/configuration of servers themselves - if I'm not 
mistaken,
each network server needs to be re-built with a proxy server library or 
set of utilities, e.g., SOCKS.

Thanks for the reply.


-
Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the
message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).