Christian Hamacher wrote:
>
> Kevin Buettner wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 20, 4:25pm, Christian Hamacher wrote:
> >
> > > o (this is not exactly diald-related, but rather an ssh issue, but I
> > > would hope that other people on this list are using SSH ...)
> > > What I first tried to do is simply rely on the keepalive fea-
> > > ture of ssh to keep the link busy, and set a short timeout for
> > > SSH-initiated connections.
> > > However, it seems like diald is not reacting to any keepalive
> > > packets sent by ssh, or ssh is not sending any. I *do* have
> > > 'keepalive yes' in both the local ssh_config and the remote
> > > sshd_config. Is there anything special about SSH keepalive
> > > packets that make them invisible to diald in it's out-of-the
> > > box configuration?
> >
> > Actually, I think you want to shut off keepalives for ssh since they
> > will detect when the connection goes down and terminate your ssh
> > session (which is not what you want). Here's the appropriate section
> > from the ssh man page:
>
> [docu snipped]
>
> Actually, that was pretty much what I wanted to get:
>
> I was hoping that the messages themselves would keep the link up,
> but in the event that diald cut off the link, there should be no
> dangling sessions on both ends (on the ssh-client side, the
> xterm completely freezes once the link goes down without closing
> the session - this seemes very 'dirty' to me).
>
> I never hat any problems with keepalive shutting down a session
> erroneously.
>
> > In the past, when I've needed to keep tunnels alive for extended
> > periods of time, I would shut off the KeepAlive feature in ssh and
> > would simply have one side echo a short message to the other side
> > periodically. I'm not sure what you should do for interactive shell
> > sessions though.
>
> OK, I could always start some X application in the background (I'm
> using X redirection) and have it receive some dummy output, but that
> doesn't look to clean to me either :-)
>
> I still have the feeling that there is some stupid reason I haven't
> spotted so far that keeps diald from seeing the keepalives.
> Actually, I just had an idea: could it be that the keepalives are
> too small for diald to notice - in other words: wasn't there some
> rule that made diald ignore packets smaller than 40 bytes?
> (I can't check right now, because I'm away from my home machine
> at the moment)
>
> Greetings,
>
> -Chris
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Christian Hamacher | phone: +49-241-80 7912 | So I cheered
> Communication Networks | fax : +49-241-8888 242 | up, and sure
> University of Technology | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | enough, things
> Aachen, Germany | | got worse ...
> WWW: http://www.comnets.rwth-aachen.de/~ham
> PGP-fingerprint: 85 04 81 E2 8D BC B3 E1 06 7D 1C 45 25 28 6C B6
> public key available at keyserver or from my homepage
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-diald" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://windowcrash.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-diald" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
