From owner-freebsd-security Mon Oct 2 12:54:35 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mail.rpi.edu (mail.rpi.edu [128.113.100.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D369F37B503 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 12:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.acs.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail.rpi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA672352; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:54:28 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200009300023.e8U0NUW20137@earth.backplane.com> References: <200009300023.e8U0NUW20137@earth.backplane.com> Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:54:25 -0400 To: Matt Dillon , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: Proposed minor mod to openssh for interactive operation Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 5:23 PM -0700 9/29/00, Matt Dillon wrote: > At the moment openssh only turns on TCP_NODELAY etc if it > thinks you are creating an interactive shell, based on > whether it allocates a pty or not. > > Unfortunately, I have an application (and I expect this > would be useful generally) which uses a ssh link between > two programs interactively. > That is, send command, wait response, send command, wait > response. Delaying packets is a bad idea and cuts > performance over the link by about 20%. Would it be more appropriate to use stunnel (in ports) instead of an ssh connection for your application? (I'm just wondering...) --- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or drosih@rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message