Re: Extensions to SSH in order to facilitate telnet replacement.

[Simon Tatham <anakin%pobox.com@localhost>]

Phillip Remaker <remaker%cisco.com@localhost> wrote:
> 1) Presentation of an out of band BREAK signal (IAC 243)  as in RFC854 [This
> is important]
> 2) Manipulation of RS-232 parameters (speed, parity, flowcontrol state) by
> IAC commands (RFC2217) [Less important]
> 
> It seems like SSH would be well suited to handle these using the well
> designed negotiation mechanisms within the protocol, and I was wondering if
> anybody has already tackled this problem.  If not, I welcome suggestions
> about the most elegant way to handle it within the spirit of the SSH
> protocol.

SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_REQUEST seems like an ideal mechanism for these.
Just define a channel request type ("send-break%mydomain.com@localhost" or
similar), and enhance your SSH2 server to accept it on a
shell-session channel and do the right thing. Then all you need to
do is convince client implementors to add support for it. Note that
you don't need to affect the standardisation process to do this at
all - you could propose your extension as an RFC so you'd have
something to refer people to, but that needn't be a prerequisite for
getting it implemented.

Cheers,
Simon
-- 
Simon Tatham         "The difference between theory and practice is
<anakin%pobox.com@localhost>    that, in theory, there is no difference."