[lug] traceroute on forwarded ports plus socks vs port forward

[karl horlen]

i'm trying to route local port 80 / 443 locally to an external server so i can browse through it. 

is there a way to confirm that i am indeed using those ports?  when i run a tracert (the client is windows and i'm running tracert from cmd aka dos prompt), the hops still route through my dsl provider.  i presume that is the correct behavior since traceroute probably works on a different port other than 80 or 443.  

so other than using a packet sniffer, is there a command i can run to prove when i load an url in a browser that i'm actually routing through my remote server via ssh tunnel and not through the hops associated with my dsl provider.

finally, i'm forwarding two local ports, 80 and 443 and am assuming that on a windows box the browser should just find and use these ports.  i've seen recommendations for using a socks proxy to achieve the same result.  i'm trying to understand the difference.  from what i gather, a socks proxy will do the same thing but you only have to set one forwarding which is the socks ip address instead of two (80 and 443) in port forwarding method.  but you also have to configure the app, in this case the browser to use the proxy, an additional step.  then the browser / app simply forwards all requests on any and all ports fed to it to the socks proxy port. is this correct?

i guess i'm not sure what the benefits are to using one method vs the other.  since ssh (windows putty) allows you to configure multiple port forwards in one definition, once you set it up, you just have to kick off the connection so it saves you the hassle of enabling disabling socks proxy in your browser config.

so why would i want to use a socks proxy?  i can't think of any

thanks

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/pipermail/lug/attachments/20110706/4ed9f05f/attachment.html>