[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

multi-hop vs proxy

From: Michael Albinus
Subject: multi-hop vs proxy
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 22:07:17 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)


Tramp uses today a syntax describing the complete route to hosts which
could not be accessed directly. I believe this is not very convenient,
because one has always to type the whole route, something like this:

I propose to use a notation of proxies instead. Proxies describe, in
Tramp syntax, the route one has to follow for a given target.

Let's say you declare the following:

(add-to-list 'tramp-default-proxies-alist
             (list "\\`real\\.host\\'" "kai" "rsh:address@hidden"))

Then "/telnet:address@hidden:/path/to.file" would always go via

Even more than one hop could be defined this way:

(add-to-list 'tramp-default-proxies-alist
             (list "\\`second\\.hop\\'" "" "ssh:first.hop"))
(add-to-list 'tramp-default-proxies-alist
             (list "\\`real\\.host\\'" "" "ssh:second.hop"))

"/telnet:address@hidden:/path/to.file" would be equivalent to (todays

Advantages are user convenience, code cleanup (multi-hop is a
parameter for most of the Tramp functions, although almost never
needed), and preparation for other Tramp filename syntax like URLs.

Additionally, one could distinguish in "transit" methods and
"endpoint" methods. All methods used today for single-hop are
"endpoint" methods, and all methods defined today for multi-hops are
"transit methods". This would enlarge possibilities for multi-hops,
because out-of-band and foreign methods are currently not allowed for

What do people think about it?

Best regards, Michael.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]