RFC 1919: Classical versus Transparent IP Proxies
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document explains "classical" and "transparent" proxy techniques and attempts to provide rules to help determine when each proxy system may be used without causing problems. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC1919
- Published
- March 1996
- Authors
- M. Chatel
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- Legacy
- Area
- —
- Pages
- 35
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 1984IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic Technology and the InternetCurrent
August 1996
- RFC 1805Location-Independent Data/Software Integrity ProtocolCurrent
June 1995
- RFC 1760The S/KEY One-Time Password SystemCurrent
February 1995
- RFC 1751A Convention for Human-Readable 128-bit KeysCurrent
December 1994
- RFC 1704On Internet AuthenticationCurrent
October 1994
- RFC 1579Firewall-Friendly FTPCurrent
February 1994
- RFC 2271An Architecture for Describing SNMP Management FrameworksObsoleted
January 1998
- RFC 1511Common Authentication Technology OverviewCurrent
September 1993
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?