<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

From: "Dick St.Peters" <stpeters,AT,NetHeaven,DOT,com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 21:21:10 +0100
In-reply-to: <200302202028.50679.aortuno@futurespace.es>

> I decided to abstain from using PKCIPE. Nearly-trivial
> scripts can accomplish the same using ssh.
> PKCIPE is fine per se, but I think CIPE project might
> as well save developer time and efforts and use already
> existing tools instead.

Using ssh requires the CIPE user have a shell account on
the tunnel server.  In many situations - including many
under which CIPE is used - that is out of the question.

In my opinion PKCIPE addresses a need and is a valuable
addition to CIPE.

People need to remember that situations differ, and just
because one person doesn't need something doesn't mean
it's of no use to others.  Otherwise, people who don't
need encryption could argue there's no need for CIPE
because un-encrypted GRE and IP/IP make perfectly good
tunnels that have been used for years.

Some peoples' situations require encryption, so they need
CIPE or something similar.  Other peoples' situations
prohibit shell access, so they need tools like PKCIPE.

Dick St.Peters, stpeters,AT,NetHeaven,DOT,com 
Gatekeeper, NetHeaven, Saratoga Springs, NY
    Oldest Internet service based in the Adirondack-Albany region

<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]