Of course I mean the local IP address...not much use in trying to
guess the remote address!

Lennon

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:28:24 -0700, Lennon Day-Reynolds
<rcoder / gmail.com> wrote:
> Why not just have the IP address be an optional call to the
> forward/cancel_forward methods? It could default to '0.0.0.0' (or
> similar), meaning 'all interfaces'.
> 
> Lennon
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:49:54 +0900, Jamis Buck <jgb3 / email.byu.edu> wrote:
> > Gavin Sinclair wrote:
> > > What does forwarding a local port to several remote ports even mean?
> > > Can it be done with 'ssh'?  I think this question has been asked but
> > > not answered.
> >
> > I'm pretty certain it cannot be done with 'ssh'. I, too, can't quite
> > grasp what that would accomplish. I'm thinking I'll reduce the arguments
> > of "cancel_forward_local" to simply the port that is being forwarded, to
> > keep the interface simple.
> >
> > If anyone has any strong arguments as to why that should not be done,
> > please let me know. Support for multiple network interfaces would be
> > interesting, but not perhaps practical. If it ever becomes an issue,
> > perhaps I could create some "special-purpose" methods for that. I'd like
> > to keep the common case simple, though.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jamis Buck
> > jgb3 / email.byu.edu
> > http://www.jamisbuck.org/jamis
> >
> > "I use octal until I get to 8, and then I switch to decimal."
> >
> >
>