Subject: Re: Policy questions
To: None <tech-userlevel@NetBSD.org>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 01/03/2004 11:33:36
>> This is true only if you insist on using an [ssh] implementation
>> that refuses to support "none" encryption.
> even if you were to use "none", you'd still suffer from the "framing"
> and checksumming that ssh uses. rsh, on the other hand, uses no
> framing, so it can go faster.
The framing, yes, is unavoidable (but can be very low overhead in terms
of bytes on the wire). The checksumming, though, can be negotiated off
if the implementations are willing to permit MAC algorithm "none".
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML email@example.com
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B