undefined | Better HN

0 pointschias11y ago0 comments

> It's never a good idea.

I disagree with that profoundly:

I read the article. Yes, TCP over TCP include unnecessary performance-harming features in certain circumstances, because you have two unrelated collision avoidance systems running at the same time. Even so, in many scenarios TCP over TCP is an excellent idea: it can provide you with many benefits, in practical terms works great, and has no readily-available alternative which is better.

It doesn't solve the problem as theoretically neatly as possible, and carries some cruft. But hypothetical me at a starbucks about to open an ssh tunnel to a trusted connection, hypothetical you telling me that that's never a good idea. Okay then, what should I do instead?

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

IgorPartola11y ago· 2 in thread

TCP over UDP.

chiasOP11y ago

So sitting at starbucks with my laptop -- what do i do? I am not aware of an option to have SSH run over UDP, although I do know that some VPNs allow you to use UDP instead of TCP.

Unless there is a relatively simple way of getting an encrypted tunnel for my HTTP traffic using tools like ssh and netcat and other things I'm likely to already have installed, I disagree with the notion that it's never a good idea.

IgorPartola11y ago

When you are running a SOCKS proxy through ssh, you are not doing TCP over TCP. We are talking about things like OpenVPN which can do TCP over TCP, but that is generally a bad idea. It's default mode is TCP over UDP, as it should be.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse