-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 02.03.15 2:03, Antony Stone пишет: > On Sunday 01 March 2015 at 19:17:22 (EU time), Yuri Voinov wrote: > >> 02.03.15 0:07, Julianne Bielski пишет: >>> >>> http_port 443 ssl-bump >>> cert=/usr/local/squid3/etc/site_priv+pub.pem >> >> http_port 3128 intercept https_port 3129 intercept ssl-bump >> generate-host-certificates=on dynamic_cert_mem_cache_size=4MB >> cert=/usr/local/squid/etc/rootCA.crt >> key=/usr/local/squid/etc/rootCA.key >> >> 443->3129 port mappind does with NAT. > > Just out of interest, is there any functional difference between: > > - Squid listening (in intercept mode) on port 3129, and NAT > redirecting packets on port 443 to port 3129 > > and > > - Squid listening (in intercept mode) on port 443 ? Yes. Second will not work. Two days ago one man here tries to do something like this without nat. With expected result. :) > > It seems to me from a networking perspective the two should be > identical, so I wonder whether there really is any fundctional > reason for doing the NAT and listening on the redirected port? > > > Thanks, > > > Antony. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU83eSAAoJENNXIZxhPexGWpMH/A320v/Qvyceh8OTyfxNrwRR s5NntLGL41gF9a0Ie1sgKtNBvmGDgCjBEImBqw3JrK6rIsgReeE7zJ24mUFe97zz qFOF2OZJVtKzGKDp6qfSqbfXQ5qO1G1nC2oAbB9WUrLRCMrqoMAc7h52MAZUhP1w CnP8SxQy6rc1UrPs1UiUyWcVHmycNgW3WeUdGQ/14otZ1OrebJxGbVhMkM0OB+Ku JvxAVg3KnvL0rS8C+qGH0cGVCpvPhkZcgKJrggFCZ0tTQQcR2h73UEyNHnmnt4EN 15A+ZhZqv2LrkKHofV1ZAVtUb74B77ilg6rH9Bb8DJARvBJATZxx9VLkgLAeECY= =OBz5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
