Subject: RE: [midcom] defining in-path and out-of-path agents

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 15:39:06 -0400

At 03:25 PM 8/1/01 -0400, Fernando Cuervo wrote:

>once you decide that the function of the agent is inside the firewall then the thing is neither an in-path nor an out-of-path agent, further, it has nothing to do with the protocol. 

It is possible, if unlikely, that someone might want to run a midcom protocol between
an agent and a firewall on the same box.  

Melinda

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

---

From: Andrew Molitor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 14:54:30 -0500 (CDT)

> an agent and a firewall on the same box.  

	This is the land of networking. If it is possible, the probability
is nearly 1 that someone somewhere will want to do it.

	If you have middlebox technology and agent technology, which
technologies communicate via MIDCOM, it makes perfect sense to package
the two together, talking MIDCOM over sockets connected to localhost,
to implement a lower end solution.

	I agree that things become much clearer if you think in
terms of functions, not boxes. My experience suggests that drawing
a "box" around any particular set of functions tends to yield a
more or less well-defined device, which someone will surely desire
some day.

		Andrew

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 16:21:43 -0700

>to implement a lower end solution.

I have been eagerly hunting for a word describing this approach. It
is a true midcom (OOP) SIP FCP however colocated in the same physical
device with its pin-hole management mechanism.

Shiv
[email-masked]