From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Markus Friedl To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: The problem with SSH2 Message-ID: <20010127153453.B6976@folly> References: <200101261956.OAA30860@smtp4.fas.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200101261956.OAA30860@smtp4.fas.harvard.edu>; from rsc@plan9.bell-labs.com on Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 02:56:40PM -0500 Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:34:53 +0100 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5386cd5e-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 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