Hello everybody,
I have some trouble evaluating between a transparent proxy and NAT, assuming that I
need 1: m NAT (or just masquerading) on a non registered LAN.
Both seem to accomplish the same, no modified user or client procedures and they look
like a single host to the outer world.
NAT only sees the protocol level, a proxy can also do application level. (Actually what is
the diffenence between transparent socks and masquerading?).
If I don´t want to do caching, logging or inbound services is there a reason to prefer
transparent proxies from a security (or any) point of view?
thanks
Martin
|
|
