 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Everybody runs their stuff over HTTP, even if it's wholly inappropriate,
because HTTP goes through all firewalls.
You probably thought this sad state of affairs was merely a de facto
standard. But no. It's actually formally defined in RFC 3093.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3093
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Everybody runs their stuff over HTTP, even if it's wholly inappropriate,
> because HTTP goes through all firewalls.
>
> You probably thought this sad state of affairs was merely a de facto
> standard. But no. It's actually formally defined in RFC 3093.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3093
So firewall providers will just have to turn on deep packet inspection
and we're back to square one.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/09/2011 01:56 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> Everybody runs their stuff over HTTP, even if it's wholly inappropriate,
>> because HTTP goes through all firewalls.
>>
>> You probably thought this sad state of affairs was merely a de facto
>> standard. But no. It's actually formally defined in RFC 3093.
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3093
>
> So firewall providers will just have to turn on deep packet inspection
> and we're back to square one.
There's a fix for that too:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3514
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 02/09/2011 01:56 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>> Everybody runs their stuff over HTTP, even if it's wholly inappropriate,
>>> because HTTP goes through all firewalls.
>>>
>>> You probably thought this sad state of affairs was merely a de facto
>>> standard. But no. It's actually formally defined in RFC 3093.
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3093
>>
>> So firewall providers will just have to turn on deep packet inspection
>> and we're back to square one.
>
> There's a fix for that too:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3514
Uh-huh.
Look at the date it was submitted.
Network Working Group S. Bellovin
Request for Comments: 3514 AT&T Labs Research
Category: Informational 1 April 2003
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/09/2011 02:03 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> On 02/09/2011 01:56 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>>> Everybody runs their stuff over HTTP, even if it's wholly
>>>> inappropriate,
>>>> because HTTP goes through all firewalls.
>>>>
>>>> You probably thought this sad state of affairs was merely a de facto
>>>> standard. But no. It's actually formally defined in RFC 3093.
>>>>
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3093
>>>
>>> So firewall providers will just have to turn on deep packet inspection
>>> and we're back to square one.
>>
>> There's a fix for that too:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3514
>
> Uh-huh.
>
> Look at the date it was submitted.
You realise that I even put "fools" right there in the subject line,
right? :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
