IETF-SSH archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Other Socket Tunnels (Was: New draft Possibilities)



Ben Harris wrote:
In article <015301c5ae4d$7cb18250$6c051fac@lighthammer> you write:
I was just wondering if there has ever been any
thought put to making a draft of a UDP tunnel like the
TCP forwarding function.

I was tossing this idea along with unix domain sockets/windows named pipes
and thought it might make more sense to define a generic "socket tunnel"
session or subsystem.  Something like:

  byte      SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_OPEN
  string    "direct-socket"
  string    socket type name (e.g. "udp","unix","named-pipe")
  uint32    sender channel
  uint32    initial window size
  uint32    maximum packet size

The extra name in there breaks the format of SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_OPEN.  Since
you don't have any data specific to "direct-socket" apart from that name, it would be better to just make it part of the channel type (so "direct-udpip",
"direct-unix", "direct-named-pipe").

Alternatively, the following format works:

>   byte      SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_OPEN
>   string    "direct-socket"
>   uint32    sender channel
>   uint32    initial window size
>   uint32    maximum packet size
>   string    socket type name (e.g. "udp","unix","named-pipe")

(I'm not commenting on which would be better... just
that both are legal.)

Thanks,

Joseph



Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index