Article delegate-en/4124 of [1-5169] on the server localhost:119
  upper oldest olders older1 this newer1 newers latest
[Top/Up] [oldest] - [Older+chunk] - [Newer+chunk] - [newest + Check]
Newsgroups: mail-lists.delegate-en

[DeleGate-En] Re: performance measurements and socks question
11 Sep 2008 11:16:31 GMT Andre <>


The functionality you implemented in the VSAP protocol is actually not
possible with other SOCKS implementations and I also suspected this to
be an extension of the socks protocol. But the possibility is actually
quite neat :) and this is exactly what I'm looking for. Might it be
possible to get a translation of the
japanese version?
So is it possible to use a regular SOCKS client with the protocol or are
there special requirements in how to talk to such a proxy? And does this
protocol still support the regular proxy forwarding functionality?

Also thanks for the information concerning the connect time with ssl,
I'll give this a try.

Best regards,

Yutaka Sato schrieb:
> Hi,
> In message <_A4118@delegate-en.ML_> on 09/10/08(20:17:55)
> you Andre <> wrote:
>  |We did some performance measurements with Delegated and Squid in our research group. Our setup builds a chain of 3 SSL
>  |proxies using the CONNECT command of HTTP. We would like to share our findings with you.
>  |Maybe your are able to shed some light on the difference in the connection time.
>  |
>  |As a configuration file we use
>  |
>  |-P1128
>  |STLS="-fcl"
>  |ADMIN=none
>  |RELIABLE="*"
>  |RESCONF=/etc/resolv.conf
>  |RES_WAIT=0
>  |TLSCONF="-vd,cache:no"
> Note that disabling the SSL cache with "TLSCONF=cache:no" will reduce
> the performance, possibly significantly.
> Also conditional SSL with "STLS=-fcl" (not with "STLS=fcl") might
> reduce the performance.
>  |We would also like to know whether it is possible to use the BIND command to open a specific port on the SOCKS server
>  |not just for one client connection, but for multiple client connections.
> Is it possible with other implementations of a SOCKS server?
> Since the tcp connection established by the BIND command on the SOCKS
> protocol becomes a transparent connection with the remote peer after
> the ACCEPT command, there is no chance to reuse it for another ACCEPT.
>  |If this is not originally intended, might
>  |this possibly a future feature?
> It needs to extend the specification of SOCKS protocol.
> This was one of the reasons I made the "VSAP" protocol to realize such
> functionality ten years ago.
> <URL:> (in Japanese)
> <URL:>

  admin search upper oldest olders older1 this newer1 newers latest
[Top/Up] [oldest] - [Older+chunk] - [Newer+chunk] - [newest + Check]