[lug] [OT] ssh-reverse-tunnel discussion

[Daniel Webb]

On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 08:33:24PM -0700, David Anselmi wrote:

> You have a lot of options.  Besides removing or combining as many as you 
> can to keep things simple, you might try using the ssh equivalent short 
> and long versions.  For example:
> 
> Is "ssh-reverse-tunnel server" different than "ssh-reverse-tunnel 
> --server-host server_host"?

"ssh-reverse-tunnel server" means the script is in server mode, which is
a separate issue than which hosts are the server and client.  To
simplify setup, all the options are the same whether you're on the
server side using server mode, or on the client side using client mode.

> "--server-user server_user" could be replaced with "-l server_user", 
> couldn't it?

The reason I didn't use ssh option names is that there are two SSH
connections here (client->server and server->client).  Which one would
get the standard names?  I was afraid it would confuse the issue.
 
> (And you might name the script srt, too, if that isn't already taken.)

auto-apt doesn't show anything called bin/srt, so it's probably open.
I like package names to be descriptive if possible, which is why I chose
ssh-reverse-tunnel for the package name.  For simple packages, I like
the command to be the same name as the package.  That was my reasoning,
but I'm not dead-set on it.

> You use localhost in several examples and then put in the "EXAMPLE - 
> RESOLVING HOST KEY CONFLICTS" section.  Perhaps it would be better to 
> use "server" or "client" and specify that they represent resolvable host 
> names (doesn't matter how they resolve).

I can see how this would clarify, I'll change all the localhosts to
server_host in that section, thanks!