|
Yes, I definately should go into more detail about
what I want to do.
Seeing as how Windows NT doesn't do socket handling very
well it seems
a bad idea to have a Chat server that is dealing with multiple
socket
connect,
and since our only developers at this company are Windows
NT developers,
there is no way to get this application wrote in Linux. I
believe that if I
can
get linux to handle the TCP Handshaking and such, it
would prove to be more
stable than having Window NT do it. So the plan is to
to have Linux accept
the
connects and do the socket spooling. I would like
to take all the data and
direct
it to a stream that would point to the NT
Chat Server. The Linux box would
then
deside based on headers and such in
the chat server as to which client the
data
belongs to.
Make
sense?
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince
Mulhollon" <vlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
<debian-firewalls@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
<micheal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent:
Wednesday, November 08, 2000 6:02 AM
Subject: Re: Data Piping
>
Good Morning,
>
> You posted to debian-firewalls, therefore I assume
this has something to
> do with making a hole in a
firewall.
>
> I think if "we" knew the purpose of all this "data
piping" then it would
> be easier to find a solution to the true problem,
which might be more
> efficient than asking "us" to verify one possible
solution to a problem
> "we" don't understand. Regardless, here's my
theory.
>
> If I interpret "connection" literally, you can't do that
at the TCP level,
> although there's surely many ways to combine the
output of multiple TCP
> connections. TCP was designed as a point to
point reliable data system.
> So it doesn't do multiple simultaneous
timeout timers or byte-window
> counters, on a single connection. If
you lost a datagram from endpoint
> #89 of a "connection", how would the
main site know it was lost, and then
> how would it tell #89 to resend, at
the TCP level? Of course you could
> have multiple TCP connections
to some kind of hub process that combines
> the data, which has already
been suggested.
>
> If I interpret "connection" as "TCP port", what
you could do is run
> several copies of the "redir" program on the Debian
firewall. For
> example, say you had an IRC server box on the inside
network on port 6667
> and you wanted it accessible from the rest of the
world on ports 6665,
> 6666, 6667, and 6668.
>
> Then you'd
run redir on the firewall to connect outsideip:6665 to
> ircserver:6667,
run another copy of redir to connect outsideip:6666 to
> ircserver:6667,
and so on and so forth. I think that would work, although
> I've
never tried something exactly like that, but done many similar
>
things. Personally I'd put all the redirs in a shell script to start
them
> up manually every reboot, but of course that depends upon
individual
> cases.
>
> On the Debian firewall, as root user,
you could install redir and any
> dependant packages by running the usual
"apt-get install redir"
>
> Thanks and Good Luck!
>
>
P.S. If you have to use micro$oft LookOut, you have my
sympathies.
>
> ----- Forwarded by Vince Mulhollon/Norlight on
11/08/2000 07:44 AM -----
>
>
> "Michael McConnell" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
11/08/2000 12:02
AM
>
>
>
To: <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<debian-firewall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
cc: (bcc: Vince
Mulhollon/Norlight)
> Fax
to:
>
Subject: Data
Piping
>
>
> Ok here goes some crazy idea.
>
>
What I want to do is accept multiple TCP connections, but yet, PIPE all
>
the DATA into one single TCP connection?
>
>
TCP---------\
>
\
>
TCP-----------\
>
\
> TCP-------------========
TCP
>
/
> TCP----------/
>
> Hmm, lets see how outlook does with
ANSI...
>
>
> Theories?
>
>
Mike
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lvs-users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
For additional commands, e-mail: lvs-users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
|
|
