From: Jim Mercer [mailto:jim@reptiles.org] Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2000 10:38 AM
On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 10:25:18AM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
why does the application need a "share"? can it not just negotiate the information needed without mounting the entire office over a 33.6K connection?
You ARE joking, right? I haven't seen a 33.6K connection in years.
well, you live a sheltered life.
i'm kinda getting tired of people who design/implement wide area applications while wearing blinders.
So am I. Transit providers shouldn't be filtering without specific request.
could you not use an IPSec tunnel from one LAN to another, then run SMB over that tunnel?
is it not possible to use ssh port forwarding to move the packets through a secure tunnel that way?
When I can, that's what I do, via F-Secure port forwarding. However, many shops explicitly block port 22. This kills IPsec as well.
if many shops are explicitly blocking port 22, but allowing SMB, then they need their heads examined.
We agree there. I prefer the SSH connection. That's why we went to the trouble to set it up in the first place.
i'm not sure how port 22 effects IPsec.
Kills it dead, just like SSH.
it seems that you are arguing that filtering SMB will inadvertantly effect a bunch of boneheads that don't know what they are doing beyond point and click.
Say that to a dot-com VP and manage to keep your business relationship (paycheck). If you can do that, I want you on my sales force.
i don't have a problem with that. sure would clear off a bunch of bandwidth from my networks to further enable the users who aren't boneheads (or being managed by boneheads).
The "A" students work in research labs, run by the "B" students, in companies, that are managed by the "C" students, for the owners, that were the "D" students. They may be boneheads, but who has the money?