Re : Cisco WCCP and Squid

HI, Matthew:

  Is ipfwadm necessary for squid box if I have an Alteon ACEswitch to do
transparent proxy.
If ipfwadm is not necessary . What will be cached in squid when using
ACEswitch? pure IP address or FQDN?

Thanks .

Robin@acer.net

> -----原始郵件-----
> 寄件者: Matthew Petach [SMTP:mattp@Internex.NET]
> 傳送時間: 1998年2月25日 AM 04:46
> 收件者: d.begley@nepean.uws.edu.au
> 副本: hank@ibm.net.il; squid-users@nlanr.net
> 主旨: Re: Cisco WCCP and Squid
>
> Recently, David J N Begley talked about "Re: Cisco WCCP and Squid",
> and said
> >
> > On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> >
> > > to redirect web requests to a wccp engine on ethernet3/1. The
> question is,
> > > will Squid handle Cisco redirects?
> >
> > As far as I can tell, Cisco hasn't published *any* technical
> > specifications on the WCCP protocol (I can't find anything on CCO,
> nor in
> > any of the Internet drafts held by the IETF) - subsequently, only
> Cisco
> > products (or products from vendors under some agreement with Cisco)
> can
> > use the WCCP protocol (until someone with enough spare money, time
> and
> > generosity decides to reverse engineer the protocol I s'pose).
> >
> > > This would be a better solution than what John proposes in the FAQ
> since if
> > > the proxy server is down then the service is down, whereas the
> cisco
> > > implementation is supposed to sense whether the proxy server is up
> or down.
> >
> > Yes, this would be a "nice" addition to Squid; but without any
> > specifications, what's the chance of WCCP appearing in Squid?
> Pretty slim
> > I'd say.
>
> If you want the reliability of the WCCP without wanting to pay
> the full price for the Cisco solution, and you like Squid, I'll
> put a plug in again for the Alteon ACEswitch. You don't need to
> put route-maps into your Cisco and worry about process-switching
> all of your web traffic, it redirects port 80 for you, it allows
> you to have multiple Squid boxes hanging off the unit, with
> dynamic failover in case one of the unit stops responding, and
> it works at full wirespeed. Take a gigabit ethernet port in
> from your access pool, send a gigabit port out to the internet
> backbone router, and have 8 Squid boxes hanging off 100mb
> ethernet ports, with all port 80 traffic load-balanced among
> the 8 Squid boxes, and you've got a transparent proxy-cache
> that will beat the pants off anything to roll out of Cisco's
> labs, for a quarter the price. AND, you get to keep working
> with the Squid you know and love, source code and all.
>
> It didn't take much thinking for me to make the right choice.
>
> > If specs *do* become available, I'd be queuing up to be one of the
> first
> > beta-testers for WCCP support in Squid (I'd even try and code some
> of
> > it, damnit!).
>
> Or, simply go with the competitor, that's already using open
> protocols, supporting standard ICP between Squid boxes. If
> you're serious about transparent proxying, Alteon has the
> solution you're looking for.
>
> > Cheers..
> > dave
>
> I don't work for them, I don't even know what their building
> looks like, I'm just a really happy user of their box.
>
> Matt
> --
> InterNex Information Services | Matthew Petach {MP59}
> Senior Network Engineer | mpetach@internex.net
> 2306 Walsh Avenue | Tel: (408) 327-2211
> Santa Clara, CA 95051 | Fax: (408) 496-5484
Received on Wed Mar 11 1998 - 19:06:20 MST