[squid-dev] unsupported protocol classification

[Alex Rousskov]

On 12/31/2014 10:39 AM, Marcus Kool wrote:
> On 12/31/2014 02:23 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> 2. Writing adaptation hooks to pass tunnel information (using TUNMOD
>> design above) to adaptation services. The primary difficulty here is
>> handling incremental "give me more" and "give them more" decisions while
>> shoveling tunneled bytes. The current tunneling code does not do any
>> adaptation at all so the developers would be starting from scratch
>> (albeit with good examples available from non-tunneling code dealing
>> with HTTP/FTP requests and HTTP/FTP responses).


> It can be simpler.  TUNMOD replies can be limited to
> DONTKNOW - continue with what is happening and keep the TUNMOD server
> informed
> ACCEPT - continue and do not inform the TUNMOD server any more about
> this tunnel
> BLOCK - close the tunnel

Yes, of course, but supporting just the bare minimum above and
supporting it well is 80-90% of the total effort IMO.


> I think there is no need for adaptation since one accepts a webdisk, voice
> chat, VPN or whatever, or one does not accept it. So adaptation as is
> used for HTTP, is not an important feature.

In Squid terminology, "adaptation" includes passive, read-only
inspection. However, I am sure some folks would want to send error
messages in unsupported-by-Squid protocols as well. That would require
injecting content received from a TUNMOD service, just like the current
REQMOD and RESPMOD services inject HTTP and FTP error messages.


Happy New Year,

Alex.