On 25/02/11 22:53, Ãmit Kablan wrote:
Hi,
2011/2/24 Amos Jeffries<squid3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Please keep the replies on the mailing list for others to benefit from.
I charge for private assistance.
Sorry I failed to send reply to all :-(
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:32:56 +0200, Ãmit Kablan wrote:
2011/2/22 Amos Jeffries :
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:24:39 +0200, Ãmit Kablan wrote:
2011/2/21 Amos Jeffries wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:19:53 +0200, Ãmit Kablan wrote:
-------
GET
/search?hl=tr&source=hp&biw=1276&bih=823&q=eee+ktu&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=eee&fp=64d53dfd7a69225a&tch=3&ech=1Ï=6UBOTbHmCtah_Aa2haXRDw12969740590425&wrapid=tlif129697480915821&safe=active
HTTP/1.1
Note the missing http://domain details in the URL. This is not a
browser->proxy HTTP request. It is a browsers->origin request.
IIRC interception of this type of request does not work in Windows,
since
the kernel NAT details are not available without proprietary
third-party
network drivers. Look at WPAD configuration of the localnet browsers
instead, that way they will send browser->proxy requests nicely.
Exactly! The working requests are all starting with http://domain/ as
you mentioned. (I must say I couldn't capture loopback network packets
...
Squid needs to be configured via the http_port to know what mode/type of
traffic it is going to receive. The browsers need to be sending the right
type as well.
I have
-----
http_port 3128
-----
in my configuration. Do I miss something?
Yes. But you keep omitting the details of *how* browsers are getting to
squid, so we can't tell if you are attempting to run a transparent proxy or
a reverse proxy. Two very different configurations both in Squid and in the
network underneath.
Please confirm your network layout and traffic flows including software
which is involved on each related machine.
My network has 20+ machines all connecting to internet individually
through ONE adsl modem in my network (those are connected to each
other with a switch). My browsers are configured to use the squid
proxy explicitly (so I think it has nothing to to with transparency)
Okay. Then it is VERY weird that they would be behaving as if the proxy
were an origin server and not a proxy. None of the major browsers or
thousands of other agents out there display that type of confusion.
You say this Squid is on Windows where interception type of transparent
proxy is not possible for free, but keep mentioning the public website
google as working.
Actually I was trying to stress on the weird problem I encountered to
help shed some light on the problem.
I suspect you are trying to perform NAT interception on a separate box to
Squid. Which is highly dangerous.
I think NAT inspection you mentioned is not executed on the XP machine
where squid is running, yes. But I am not sharing my internet
connection through that windows machine. I just want clients (those
browsers configured to use proxy) use the internal proxy.
If the NAT anywhere is forwarding packets to Squid it would display like
this inside Squid.
Check for NAT (sometimes called port forwarding) rules on that box
mentioning the Squid box. Remove any found.
As an experiment you can also add an full firewall block of HTTP traffic
coming out of the network form anywhere except the Squid box. If the
browsers are correctly configured and going
browser->squid->firewall->Internet then the client will not even notice
the firewall block.
Amos
--
Please be using
Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE9 or 3.1.11
Beta testers wanted for 3.2.0.5
