From: Darren Salt on 25 Feb 2010 11:59
I demand that James Taylor may or may not have written...
> Darren Salt wrote:
>> James Taylor wrote"
>>> Precise use of terms is always preferable but rarely can you defeat the
>>> tide of common usage. If "firewall" is an inappropriate term, what would
>>> you describe iptables as? You could probably call it a "packet filter"
>>> with reasonable accuracy, but that term seems even more vague.
>> It isn't that either.
>> It's a convenient utility for viewing and altering netfilter's IPv4
> Aha, yes of course, but then the question becomes what to call netfilter?
See http://www.netfilter.org/ ;-)
> PS. Hi Darren, its a small world, in Usenet land anyway. Are you still
> using RISC OS, or are you entirely Linux now?
The RISC OS hw's still here, but...
> I had to abandon RISC OS (kicking and screaming) years ago when I left the
> UK for a life of travelling with a laptop, and frankly I'm now rather glad
> to be a Linux user, although I've never reclaimed on this platform the
> assembler and GUI programming skill level I had on RISC OS.
x86 asm I avoid. :-)
| Darren Salt | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Doon
| using Debian GNU/Linux | or ds ,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| + http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEeePC/
You will be surrounded by luxury.
From: James Taylor on 25 Feb 2010 12:33
Darren Salt wrote:
> x86 asm I avoid. :-)
From: alexd on 25 Feb 2010 17:01
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:47:35 +0000, Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, James Taylor wrote:
>> Is IPsec over UDP a recent innovation or has it always been part of the
>> way IPsec works?
> Pass. The Cisco VPN client has done it for ages, and it's possible it's
> largely a Ciscoism, although i believe it is a standard.
I've seen port 4500/UDP used by other vendor's VPN clients. I believe
it's referred to as IPSEC NAT-T.
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm(a)ale.cx)
21:59:00 up 10 days, 2:50, 5 users, load average: 0.03, 0.03, 0.00
DIMENSION-CONTROLLING FORT DOH HAS NOW BEEN DEMOLISHED,
AND TIME STARTED FLOWING REVERSELY
From: Tom Anderson on 25 Feb 2010 18:29
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, James Taylor wrote:
> Tom Anderson wrote:
>> James Taylor wrote:
>>> That's an interesting approach. The question is how? Is there any software
>>> I can get to automate this? Special wget or curl options?
>> There are almost certainly wget or curl options for this. Man page time,
>> i'm afraid.
> Hmmm, I don't remember seeing any for multi-server multi-connection downloads
> but I will check.
Ah, i was thinking more that if there are options for ranges and
throttling, you could moderately trivially build a multi-connection
downloader with shell script and arithmetic.
> Another issue is that not all of the downloads are over HTTP. Some are
> RTSP/RTMP and that may not be supported by either tool.
Yhea, not the faintest idea how you could do something comparable with
>>> Is there any way iptables can be used to throttle individual TCP flows?
>> Pass. But there's definitely a throttle option on at least one of wget and
> Hmmm, now that you mention it, I do recall seeing a throttling option in
> one of them (wget I think). That could be useful. However, it would
> certainly be much easier to throttle the downloads with iptables (or
> some other filter utility) than it would be to hack the source code of
> the downloader utility I'm using to replace every type of connection
> with a wget/curl equivalent. Indeed that may not even be possible.
Yes, if you can't easily extract a stream of URLs, a curl/wget approach
If a firewall won't do the throttling, you could try a proxy. Squid
certainly does throttling.
But apparently there's something called tc which is will do throttling in
what seems to be an astonishingly configurable way.
Miscellaneous Terrorists: Ducks | Bird Flu | Avian flu | Jimbo Wales |
Backstreet Boys | The Al Queda Network | Tesco -- Uncyclopedia