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

Subject: Re: PKCIPE PORT SELECTION PROBLEM
From: "insecure,AT,mail,DOT,od,DOT,ua" <insecure,AT,mail,DOT,od,DOT,ua>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:31:00 +0100
In-reply-to: <200302202028.50679.aortuno@futurespace.es>

> > > 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.
>
> Please describe this situation to me in more detail.
>
> > 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.

I do not really argue here, I do not propose abandoning PKCIPE.
Anyway, it's too late, we have users and installations depending
on it.

But I am really interested in cases where you cannot replace
PKCIPE with ssh. I'm curious. Please describe your needs.
-- 
vda





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