Re: [Netconf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netconf-reverse-ssh-00.txt
t.petch <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.secsh |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kent Watsen" <[email protected]> To: "t.petch" <[email protected]>; "Martin Bjorklund" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 5:38 PM On 6/26/13 9:09 AM, "t.petch" <[email protected]> wrote: > >Yes! That is exactly what I said. But what I also said is that Kent >says >" It works fairly well for automating the discovery of devices with >static IPs >on a reachable network, but not at all when the devices are behind a >firewall that won't allow inbound SSH connections." > >Works not at all .. when the devices are behind a firewall. > >So if devices behind a firewall is a requirement, then the design fails >to meet it. > >If that is not a requirement, why has Kent raised it (and it has been >raised before)? > >This should confuse everyone (not just me:-) Hi Tom, By saying a firewall wouldn't allow inbound SSH connections, let's simplify and assume the firewall doesn't allow any inbound TCP connections, but outbound TCP-connections are fine. The proposed solution is to repurpose the TCP connection initiated from behind the firewall. Once the network management application accepts the TCP connection, it can pass the accepted TCP socket into its SSH client of choice (e.g. a SSH library like J2SSH or even using OpenSSH's "ControlPath" parameter). On the "device" side, the accepted TCP connection can be passed into an SSH server - for instance using `sshd -i` exactly like `inetd` would do when listening on port 22. Does it make sense now? [Martin is right that this section of the draft could be clearer] <tp> Yes, that I understand. But ... the firewalls I know, at least the better ones, can look for and reject PDU of protocols such as SSH, regardless of which ports the TCP connection is using. So in that sense, a device behind a firewall that filters SSH connections still cannot be accessed. Is this an acceptable limitation? My other point is that I cannot see how this is a generic solution as the I-D claims. You need something to signal that this three-way TCP handshake is for Netconf over SSH and the only parameter I can see is the port number, so this I-D cannot be used for anything else over anything else; each combination of protocols will need a different port number. Tom Petch </tp> Thanks, Kent