兵团公安局民警江红霞谈参加结对认亲活动感受

Why is PPP over modem not considered tunneling?

百度 8月12日报道日媒称，中国人民币对美元汇率持续上升，因为中国政府推行的限制资本流出措施产生了效果。

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 understand 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.[1] ISDN, DSL, X.25, Frame Realy etc. is tunneling.[2] 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. -- 91.64.133.157 (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixing the introduction, and correct direction of the article

There are individual errors with the introduction

• Tunnelling is spelt with two Ls for British spelling, and Tunneling for USA. I'm not sure how wikipedia normally resolves this.
• Tunnelling is usually referenced as "tunnelling" the outcome, rather than "tunnelling protocol" a description of how it's accomplished.
• "that allows for the movement of data from one network to another" is the definition of communication, not Tunneling. The first line needs to be clearer and precise.
• Encapsulation isn't a "process" - this should be recast.
• Tunnelling doesn't always involve encapsulation. It's common, but it also needs contrast in the introduction to make the distinction clear.
• The data is being made private, not the "nature of traffic" particularly.
• Because isn't a great way to start a sentence. Tunnelling doesn't typically work with the "data" portion discarding lower-level protocol headers.

A lot of these errors actually arise, because apparently this article is written with something specific like PPTP (VPN) in mind. PPTP isn't tunnelling, it's Virtual Private Networking, that uses a multiplexed encrypted tunnel.

Therefore, although there are individual errors in the introduction, it should be rebuilt with a clear focus on the difference between a Tunneling protocol and something like a VPN. The VPN article should also be checked to ensure that it correctly references this revised article.

I intend to wait for criticism of my changes before I apply them.

--Merarischroeder (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

An attempt of an introduction rewrite

In computer networks, a tunnelling protocol is a communications protocol used to create a private communication channel typically between two end-points across a public (The Internet) network. The standards aren't necessarily formal, but many formal standards exist. The privacy is typically accomplished with encryption of data and/or meta-data.

Tunnelling protocols are components often used within Virtual Private Network (VPN) software and Web Proxying systems, but are not the same thing.

--Merarischroeder (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Resulting changes to the body of the article

• Remove the technical overview section - There's no need to go into too much detail about the protocols themselves, each specific protocol should have a separate article.
• "protocols" needs to be a hyperlinked article
• The protocol aspect of tunnelling beyond the general definition of a protocol needs to be expressed generally. For instance, this is where encapsulation comes into play. But also, describing different levels of OSI may be encapsulated, depending on the protocol. This section also needs to describe that tunnels can be used for individual links (like HTTPS), but also for multiplexing multiple host network streams (PPTP tunnelling protocol).
• Add a "why" section - It's more important to catalogue, "why" tunnelling might be desirable. Rename "uses" so that section remains focused on a high level of "reasons" rather than "features"
• Remove the SSH section - this is just one of many good examples that can be referenced with hyperlink.
• Revise the "Common tunnelling protocols" list - remove any that are actually systems that use tunnelling (VPNs or Proxies). If a VPN system uses a proprietary tunnelling protocol, then make that clear. For example, OpenVPN is not a tunnelling protocol, but perhaps "OpenVPN Tunneling Protocol" is.
• Add a separate section of standards and "types of software" that implement tunnelling (protocols).

--Merarischroeder (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Why was the web link removed by anti-vandalism bot?

User:Starunj (who I am not affiliated with) added the following external reference to Tunneling protocol: Tunneling SSH from behind an HTTP proxy server

Why was this considered as vandalism and reverted by VoABot_II ? Mange01 12:30, 5 December 2006 (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.

--Noah (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

reyhan kolbast?

süper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.45.109 (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Taint

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. 206.196.158.130 (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I find the picture confusing

Which is hosta? Which is hostb? Is the shown command run on hosta? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.15.122 (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

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 cleaned up 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. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

But that should be made clearer in the example, shouldn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabisg (talk ? contribs) 15:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

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 edit summary, 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)