On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Charles Galpin wrote:
> I've been doing a little reading on xinetd, and see that you can use it to
> forward ports for services to other machines, just like you can with
> ipmasqadm portfw.
>
> Could anyone offer an opinion regarding which is the better way to do
> this, and why?
I don't think one way is better than the other ... they are just
different. ipmasqadm works at the kernel level manipulating the packets.
xinetd runs in user space and copies packets. The kernel level is probably
much faster. The user space level offers more flexibility and less
possibility of something bad happening if you make a serious mistake
messing with your kernel.
> Sorry, this has turned into a little rant. I guess I just think by now,
> Red Hat would have come up with a better solution to a critical issue.
I agree. ipchains save should be better. Did you submit your request to
their bugtraq? That is the best way to get these things fixed.
thornton
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
