|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tunneling protocol article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Computing / Networking||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Why is PPP over modem not considered tunneling?
Why is PPP over a POTS or ISDN modem not considered as tunneling? PPP over modem is an LLC protocol encapsulated in another. Okay, a modem behaves as if it were a circuit switched physical link (an asynchronous serial link), but modern modems include LLC sublayer, since they divide the data into blocks (some kind of packets) rather than codewords (there are no start and stop bits), and performs packet mode flow control and automatic repeat request.
I don't undertand the definition, that tunneling is encapsulation of A in B as if B were a datalink protocol. In many tunelling protocols B is a datalink protocol. Example: PPPoE, PPPoA, etc. Mange01 18:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- You're right. ISDN, DSL, X.25, Frame Realy etc. is tunneling. The statement does not match the Wikipedia ("Protocol encapsulation carried out by conventional layered protocols, in accordance with the OSI model or TCP/IP model (for example: HTTP over TCP over IP over PPP over a V.92 modem) is not considered tunneling"). e.g. DSL modem is part of the tunnel. -- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Answer at the user talk:VoABot_II page:
- One regexp was too short (for deteting all consonant garbage words). Fixed.Voice-of-All 19:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay . I revert the bot revert. Mange01 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
An SSH tunnel is not a VPN
SSH tunnel != VPN
A VPN is a totally different animal from an SSH tunnel. They should not be confused. This is like confusing HTTP and HTML. The SSH protocol does not specify anything about VPN features. It is true the OpenSSH implements a VPN feature, but this is a feature on top of the SSH protocol. And only OpenSSH versions 4.3 or later implement this feature. And you must use an OpenSSH client that implements the VPN feature to talk to an OpenSSH server that also implements the VPN feature. This VPN feature is not compatible with any other VPN clients or any other SSH clients. A VPN is an abstract concept. It is not a standard protocol and has no specification. A VPN does not even have to be encrypted.
Anyone else feel the page is tainted by having Microsoft Windows as part of the example for SSH tunneling. I mean, it's a little ironic to say the least. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I find the picture confusing
The example section can be improved
The example says, "Example of how to set up an SSH tunnel in bash:" but it has nothing specific to bash. It should rather read, "Example of how to set up an SSH tunnel in OpenSSH:". Also the ssh command has been unnecessarily complicated, just `ssh -D 8080 user@host` should be enough to set up the SOCKS proxy. Even -p 2222 is not strictly required as the default 22 port would probably work for most of the cases, but `-f -C -q -N` are just unnecessary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabisg (talk • contribs) 14:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello there! That's a good remark, went ahead and Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC) the section a bit. You're right that the actual selection of switches could be simplified, but I guess the original author wanted to "show off" various existing possibilities. —
- Hm, anyone interested in actual details can have a look at the ssh man page. Also, if a reader isn't willing to look up, he/she probably isn't actually interested in using ssh to create tunnels; prepping everything for a blind copy&paste makes little sense, in my opinion. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Cartoonish "SpongeBob"-style images
Hey, Erik Streb! As I've described it in my , those few images look really bad and actually kind of decrease the value of the article. Could you, please, explain what are your actual reasons for creating such cartoonish images, instead of using a more formal style appropriate for an encyclopedia? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Reason? I don’t like the image that I replaced, because it looks to formal and complicated. And it has rounded corners. And it is a bitmap with lossy compression, where mines are easily editable (because losslessly saved) vector images. I didn’t have the intention to create cartoonish images. But I’ve just created hand drawn sketches with some colors to be intuitively understandable. Formal things don’t have to be explained with formal (black and white, angular) images. That the images look »really bad« for you is because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
- And seen from a formality perspective, my images contain a lot more formal information, than the one I replaced. Look at them! Erik Streb del Toro (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Please don't get me wrong, but why should your viewpoint be more important than mine, and mine is based on the illustration style of numerous other articles? In other words, I've seen no such cartoonish illustrations in any of the thousands articles I've edited so far, so it must be that a more formal style is preferred. Also, "intuitively understandable" isn't a valid argument, as, for example, I really don't find those illustrations as such. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)