Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on WG to fix it

On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 02:31:54PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "David" == David B Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net> writes:
> 
>     David> Hi, Personally, I'd rather see the issue of working through
>     David> NATs and firewalls solved at the SSH level, and then SNMP
>     David> and other SSH-using applications, such as Netconf and CLI,
>     David> could use the solution in a consistent manner.
> 
> I think that the ssh connection application already has a fairly
> reasonable story for NATs and firewalls, so I don't see much of a need
> for ssh itself to advance in this area.  
> 
> For the most part people who block port 22 really do intend to block
> ssh and so having standard facilities to get around that would not be
> appropriate.  The port forwarding support in ssh seems to be an
> adequate solution for NATs.

Sam, 

this is not about blocking port 22 as far as I understand things. I
think the issue here is that TCP connection establishment determines
ssh client/server roles.  If there would be a way to initiate the
connection but subsequently taking over the server role, protocols
like netconf and presumably isms would find it much easier to provide
CH functionality.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf