Re: [9fans] Re: The problem with SSH2

[Markus Friedl <markus.friedl@informatik.uni-erlangen.de>]

On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 02:56:40PM -0500, rsc@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:
> no, but there's also nothing intrinsic to the
> task at hand that requires such a larded
> ad-hoc protocol.  cpu(1) does everything
> and more with just 9P and ssl.  while you
> might complain about ssl, the complexity
> of the ssh protocol is not in the layer-level
> encryption code.  it's everything else.
> you also might complain that 9P would be
> too slow, but i tried it and found that the
> small-packet latency was actually _less_
> using 9P than using native ssh on the same
> unix boxes for various networks.
> 
> we're stuck with ssh, but let's not delude
> ourselves into thinking it's a good protocol.
> 
> (i'm talking about ssh1; ssh2 looks worse.)

compared to SSH-1 the SSH-2 protocol is much simpler,
cleaner and layered -- and i don't think that the transport
layer of SSH-2 is more complex than SSL. only SSH-1 is a
larded ad-hoc protocol.

-m