Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 10:06:51 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Gregory Neil Shapiro <gshapiro@FreeBSD.org> Cc: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams), cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/crypto/openssh atomicio.h auth-chall.c auth2-chall.c canohost.h clientloop.h groupaccess.c groupaccess.h kexdh.c kexgex.c log.h mac.c mac.h misc.c misc.h pathnames.h Message-ID: <15284.40987.681415.432076@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <15284.40817.364418.89517@horsey.gshapiro.net> References: <200109280133.f8S1Xr363615@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010928015644.N84277-100000@achilles.silby.com> <20010928013527.A8101@xor.obsecurity.org> <15284.36137.254842.551909@nomad.yogotech.com> <15284.40817.364418.89517@horsey.gshapiro.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> nate> So, in other words, there is really no point in having both protocols > nate> listed in the same line, since only one protocol is ever attempted. > > nate> A better description of the protocol line woudl be: > > nate> "Protocol 1" > nate> *OR* > nate> "Protocol 2" > > nate> Since in fact, it doesn't try the first protocol, and if it fails, then > nate> try the second protocol. It always sticks with the primary protocol. > > No, it does make sense to have both. Not in the client ocnfiguration, which I thought was being discussed. Or am I confused? In any case, the client configuration line only appears to allow ONE protocol exchange to be supported, and the protocol it chooses is the first one listed. It never 'falls back' and tries the other protocol if the first one fails. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15284.40987.681415.432076>