Re: Bandwidth... compression... saving $$?
- To: Jason Lim <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Bandwidth... compression... saving $$?
- From: Joel Michael <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: 03 Sep 2002 10:15:55 +1000
- Message-id: <1031012157.26225.11.camel@bofhstation>
- In-reply-to: <007701c252b0$271f9c60$0200a8c0@mailfilter>
- References: <007701c252b0$271f9c60$0200a8c0@mailfilter>
On Tue, 2002-09-03 at 04:37, Jason Lim wrote:
> Any ideas on how this tunnelling could be made completely transparent (or
> as transparent as possible)?
Well, I've done something like this with ssh tunnels and mangling the
DNS locally. Basically, set up a compressed ssh tunnel using the -L
option, listening on the service's normal port, and change the resolved
IP address of the destination to the IP address of the ssh tunnel (if
you're testing on your local machine, this would be 127.0.0.1). Once
you're finished testing, you can even use iptables to redirect traffic
to the ssh tunnels.
However, the biggest problem I found was that when ssh disconnects, it
doesn't automatically reconnect. I guess some magic scripting would get
around that easily enough, but that's when I dropped the whole idea over
a year ago.
The other (potential) problem is getting ssh access to a machine close
enough to the destination to make it worthwhile. I guess it's easy if
you have root on the target machines (this IS -isp, after all ;-).
Other potential problems have already been discussed in this thread
> I'm sure if this could be worked out, a lot of us here in Australia would
> be pretty happy :-)
Sure, it would make us happy, however most have accepted it as the price
of doing business on the Internet in Australia. *shrug* If you can't
afford it, why are you using it?
Joel Michael | Phone: +61 7 3367 3555
Systems Administrator | Fax: +61 7 3367 3544
WorldHosting.org Pty. Ltd. | Mobile: +61 408 336 728
http://www.worldhosting.org/ | Email: email@example.com