Re: Protocol ambiguity: want_reply vs CHANNEL_CLOSE

[Simon Tatham <anakin%pobox.com@localhost>]

"denis bider \(Bitvise\)" <ietf-ssh3%denisbider.com@localhost> wrote:

> The behavior that accommodates all request responders is as follows:
[...]
> - Do not reuse channel numbers, so that you can reliably ignore channel 
> request responses received after CLOSE.

The trouble with that is that it's _horrible_! The intention of the
SSH protocol design was always that channel numbers should be
reusable, so that SSH sessions do not have a designed-in lifetime
limit.

2^32 channel opens and closes is certainly a lot, but it isn't beyond
the bounds of belief in situations of (for example) heavy WWW use over
SOCKS forwarding in a long-lived connection.

It may be necessary to use this as a kludgy workaround for some
particular server, if we really cannot determine from its version
string which policy it follows, but I cannot bring myself to believe
it's the sensible policy to apply in all situations.

Cheers,
Simon
-- 
Simon Tatham         What do we want?        ROT13!
<anakin%pobox.com@localhost>   When do we want it?     ABJ!