🚀 go-pugleaf

Nick Andrew <nick@zeta.org.au> wrote:
> In <01bce4c3$964289f0$7e1411ac@epic406> "nate dutra" <dutra@cs.wisc.edu> writes:
> 
> >You'll be amazed at how much better IP masquerading is than WinGate -
> >former WinGate user and now on with IP masq-much better.
> 
> Do tell. I would like some additional ammunition as to why it is preferable
> to pay for installation and configuration of a Linux machine which can
> handle any workload you like to throw at it versus buying an N-user
> license of a product which should have been part of Windows TCP/IP.

_transparency_ :-)

With "IP masquerading" (or NAT if you talk BSD/CISCO) you simply set
the "IP masquerading" host as the default route on all your clients.
Packets will transparently pass through the NAT machine and out onto
the 'net.

With WinGate/WinProxy (etc etc) you need to configure each client
program that will talk via the proxy to use the proxy. i.e. configure
SMTP, HTTP, FTP, etc.

Note that firewalls like TIS Gauntlet use a proxy in combination with
a "transparent proxy" feature to provide transparency.

Both Linux and FreeBSD provide good "IP masquerading" support. Linux
uses an "in kernel" method for speed at the expense of a larger kernel
memory footprint. FreeBSD uses a "user land" daemon. Also NetBSD and
OpenBSD can use the IP filter kernel module to provide "IP masquerading".

Cheers.
--        +------------------------------------------------------------+
      .   | John Saunders   mailto:John.Saunders@scitec.com.au  (Work) |
  ,--_|\  |                 mailto:john@nlc.net.au              (Home) |
 /  Oz  \ |                 http://www.nlc.net.au/~john/               |
 \_,--\_/ | SCITEC LIMITED  Phone +61 2 9428 9563  Fax +61 2 9428 9933 |
       v  |    "By the time you make ends meet, they move the ends."   |
          +------------------------------------------------------------+