Re: Protocol ambiguity: want_reply vs CHANNEL_CLOSE
Simon Tatham <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.secsh |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
"denis bider \(Bitvise\)" <[email protected]> wrote: > The behavior that accommodates all request responders is as follows: [...] > - Do not reuse channel numbers, so that you can reliably ignore channel > request responses received after CLOSE. The trouble with that is that it's _horrible_! The intention of the SSH protocol design was always that channel numbers should be reusable, so that SSH sessions do not have a designed-in lifetime limit. 2^32 channel opens and closes is certainly a lot, but it isn't beyond the bounds of belief in situations of (for example) heavy WWW use over SOCKS forwarding in a long-lived connection. It may be necessary to use this as a kludgy workaround for some particular server, if we really cannot determine from its version string which policy it follows, but I cannot bring myself to believe it's the sensible policy to apply in all situations. Cheers, Simon -- Simon Tatham What do we want? ROT13! <[email protected]> When do we want it? ABJ!