From: hros@user.sourceforge.net   
      
   "Jorgen Grahn"  wrote:   
      
   > What you call "echo service" is normally called "HTTP proxy". (And   
   > when people speak of "echo service" I normally think of the TCP and   
   > UDP echo services, which do something completely different).   
      
   Sure, I know about port 7 (echo). Also "HTTP proxy", but that doesn't   
   AFAIK do what I want it to do.   
      
   > - What is the system you're testing -- a client, or the whole system   
   >  of N clients and a server?   
      
   The latter.   
      
   > - Why don't you have enough control over the clients so you can   
   >  reconfigure them, if they're part of your test bed?   
      
   I have some control over them, but the testing should be non-intrusive and   
   started at any time (the false DNS-server dropped into the network). No   
   (re)configuration should in my view keep the error-sources down. Besides the   
   clients are a mix of Linux and Win-Vista boxes. I don't like the idea to   
   install   
   Perl/Python/whatever just to do this.   
      
   > - Are you allowed to put extra load on the server,   
   >  stealing its CPU resources or SIGSTOP the server software momentarily?   
      
   No. Besides it's a Vista-server. And adding another software piece that   
   throttles   
   the performance, also adds more unreliability IMHO.   
      
   > - If you're testing the client, why isn't enough to test one at a time?   
      
   I could, but want to make a full-scale test too.   
      
   > - Why don't you consider running the proxy ("echo service") yourself,   
   >  so you have control over its behavior?   
      
   Maybe a customised Squid service would do it. But again, I want this test   
   setup to involve minimum amount of new and unreliable test software. Hasn't   
   this problem been raised and solved before? A need creates a market.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)