On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Kevin Winchester < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > I have an application under development that uses SSHD TCP/IP Port > Forwarding for the client and server sides of a communication interface. I > have need of two features that I do not believe are possible currently in > the SSHD client: > > 1. At times, I would like to forward the same port on different local > addresses. The current TcpipForwardSupport class tracks the forwards by > port number, ignoring the local address, making this impossible. As of my > contribution in SSHD-192, I can replace TcpipForwardSupport with my own > factory-injected class. I plan to do this, but I thought I would offer to > add this functionality to the standard TcpipForwardSupport if that is > something that would be received favorably. > Well, you can always create a patch and attach your patch if you already have it. Worst case, it won't be applied ;-) Though, I'm not sure to understand what you mean by "forwarding the same port on different local addresses" ... > > 2. At other times in my application, I do not really care what local port > is used for forwarding. The InetSocketAddress class documentation states > that one can specify 0 as the port number to request this functionality > when binding. I am not sure if this will work through SSHD/MINA. And if > it does work, the trouble would be finding out what local port was bound, > since I would need to connect to it. Is there any way to do this > currently? What about if a new method were added to the ClientSession > interface, something like: > > int startLocalPortForwarding(**String localHostname, SshdSocketAddress > remote); > > that would return the port number bound. Looking at the code, I guess it > might require a Future of some sort since the binding is likely not done > immediately, but that conveys the general idea. > There's a really easy workaround though. You can open a server socket, check the bound port, close the socket and use the port when calling sshd. But yeah, I suppose we should enhance sshd to support that use case. > > As with my previous questions, I am happy to contribute in any way I can > to the development of these features. I would only request an indication > that these features would be acceptable, as well as some guidance as to the > preferred approach for achieving the requested functionality. > > Thanks, > Kevin > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ FuseSource, Integration everywhere http://fusesource.com
