Re: [Standards] XMPP VPN?
Andreas Monitzer wrote: > On Jan 03, 2009, at 18:57, Stephan Maka wrote: > >> Andreas Monitzer wrote: >>> btw, Apple's iChat supports that kind of thing, even via XMPP (for >>> negotiation, afterwards it switches to the Apple Remote Desktop >>> protocol). >>> I've used it a lot to help other people with computer problems, very >>> useful. >> >> Is there any documentation on their protocols available? > > I don't think so. Apple was never one to document their protocols. Well, that's not quite true. I did work with folks there to document the link-local (Bonjour) IM stuff (XEP-0174). /psa
Re: [Standards] XMPP VPN?
On Jan 03, 2009, at 18:57, Stephan Maka wrote: Andreas Monitzer wrote: btw, Apple's iChat supports that kind of thing, even via XMPP (for negotiation, afterwards it switches to the Apple Remote Desktop protocol). I've used it a lot to help other people with computer problems, very useful. Is there any documentation on their protocols available? I don't think so. Apple was never one to document their protocols. andy
Re: [Standards] XMPP VPN?
Andreas Monitzer wrote: > btw, Apple's iChat supports that kind of thing, even via XMPP (for > negotiation, afterwards it switches to the Apple Remote Desktop protocol). > I've used it a lot to help other people with computer problems, very useful. Is there any documentation on their protocols available?
Re: [Standards] XMPP VPN?
On Dec 13, 2008, at 11:32, Jonathan Schleifer wrote: Sorry, I didn't mean that the idea was crazy of VNC via XMPP (whereas HTTP via XMPP sure is), but that VPN via XMPP is even less crazy :). Sure VNC via XMPP is [not] useless, and once again this is where XMPP could replace something proprietary: TeamViewer for example. btw, Apple's iChat supports that kind of thing, even via XMPP (for negotiation, afterwards it switches to the Apple Remote Desktop protocol). I've used it a lot to help other people with computer problems, very useful. andy
Re: [Standards] XMPP VPN?
Am 13.12.2008 um 11:53 schrieb Dirk Meyer: Jonathan Schleifer wrote: Sure VNC via XMPP is useless, and once again this is where XMPP could replace something proprietary: TeamViewer for example. usefull? Oops, there was a not missing, sorry. Still too early in the morning ;). And BTW, I guess it would cost me about one day of work to make a prototype and does this. But it will be very slow since my stack only supports IBB as transport. What I want to say here: XMPP can replace many proprietary solutions with a working Jingle stack. Most solutions only exist to help you through the NAT -- we can do that, too Yeah, maybe we really need to push Jingle :). VPN-via-Jingle wouldn't be too hard either on Linux. For win32, I don't know. -- Jonathan PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Standards] XMPP VPN?
Jonathan Schleifer wrote: > Sure VNC via XMPP is useless, and once again this is where XMPP could > replace something proprietary: TeamViewer for example. usefull? And BTW, I guess it would cost me about one day of work to make a prototype and does this. But it will be very slow since my stack only supports IBB as transport. What I want to say here: XMPP can replace many proprietary solutions with a working Jingle stack. Most solutions only exist to help you through the NAT -- we can do that, too Dirk -- Remaining time multiplied by distress is constant.
Re: [Standards] XMPP VPN?
Am 13.12.2008 um 10:52 schrieb Dirk Meyer: HTTP over XMPP may be just wrong to do, but VNC over HTTP is very usefull. Think about all the PC users you know who ask your for help from time to time. It is easier if you can just use VNC to show them remotly. But they are always behind a NAT, so VNC does not work. There are solutions to that problem, but providing VNC access by using XMPP and tunnel the VNC data over a Jingle stream is a very ellegant trick. There will be a button "Get help from Jonathan" and the XMPP client will connect to you, negotiate a Jingle connection and you will see the remote desktop. But that would require a) end-to-end security and b) a TCP-like connection. On the other hand, I would all have less time to do stuff I want if my sister could get help with a single button :) Sorry, I didn't mean that the idea was crazy of VNC via XMPP (whereas HTTP via XMPP sure is), but that VPN via XMPP is even less crazy :). Sure VNC via XMPP is useless, and once again this is where XMPP could replace something proprietary: TeamViewer for example. -- Jonathan PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Standards] XMPP VPN?
Jonathan Schleifer wrote: > Am 13.12.2008 um 09:57 schrieb Dirk Meyer: > >> I always like the something-over-XMPP idea. This includes HTTP, VNC, >> and >> VPN seems crazy but why not. But for everything like this we need more >> bandwidth. If can not use IBB for that. VPN over XMPP can use the >> existing ICE-UDP, but this against shows that we need good TCP support >> for XMPP. > > Well, I would even call that idea less crazy than HTTP-over-XMPP or > VNC-over-XMPP HTTP over XMPP may be just wrong to do, but VNC over HTTP is very usefull. Think about all the PC users you know who ask your for help from time to time. It is easier if you can just use VNC to show them remotly. But they are always behind a NAT, so VNC does not work. There are solutions to that problem, but providing VNC access by using XMPP and tunnel the VNC data over a Jingle stream is a very ellegant trick. There will be a button "Get help from Jonathan" and the XMPP client will connect to you, negotiate a Jingle connection and you will see the remote desktop. But that would require a) end-to-end security and b) a TCP-like connection. On the other hand, I would all have less time to do stuff I want if my sister could get help with a single button :) Dirk -- Computer analyst to programmer: "You start coding. I'll go find out what they want."
Re: [Standards] XMPP VPN?
Am 13.12.2008 um 09:57 schrieb Dirk Meyer: I always like the something-over-XMPP idea. This includes HTTP, VNC, and VPN seems crazy but why not. But for everything like this we need more bandwidth. If can not use IBB for that. VPN over XMPP can use the existing ICE-UDP, but this against shows that we need good TCP support for XMPP. Well, I would even call that idea less crazy than HTTP-over-XMPP or VNC-over-XMPP, as this allows to have something like hamachi where you just rightclick and select VPN. And if that's a standard, that would work with more than just one client ;). So this might be once again something where something proprietary (Hamachi) could be replaced by something free using XMPP :). -- Jonathan PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Standards] XMPP VPN?
Jonathan Schleifer wrote: > Well, I recently saw that Wippien has VPN support and uses XMPP for > the messaging part. I thought that it maybe might be a good idea to > have a XEP for VPN via XMPP. I think this could be achieved quite well > with Jingle. We would just need a XEP which specifies how the packets > should be transfered over the tunnel established by Jingle. What do > you think? I always like the something-over-XMPP idea. This includes HTTP, VNC, and VPN seems crazy but why not. But for everything like this we need more bandwidth. If can not use IBB for that. VPN over XMPP can use the existing ICE-UDP, but this against shows that we need good TCP support for XMPP. Dirk -- Unix is the worst operating system; except for all others. -- Berry Kercheval
Re: [Standards] XMPP VPN?
On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 15:31 -0800, Kurt Zeilenga wrote: > On Dec 12, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Jonathan Schleifer wrote: > > > Well, I recently saw that Wippien has VPN support and uses XMPP for > > the messaging part. I thought that it maybe might be a good idea to > > have a XEP for VPN via XMPP. I think this could be achieved quite > > well with Jingle. We would just need a XEP which specifies how the > > packets should be transfered over the tunnel established by Jingle. > > What do you think? > > Why not just specify IP over XMPP? (sounds like something for > publication on 1 April 2009) > How about IPoAC (RFC 1149) over XMPP? :P Tim
Re: [Standards] XMPP VPN?
On Dec 12, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Andreas Monitzer wrote: On Dec 12, 2008, at 20:09, Jonathan Schleifer wrote: Well, I recently saw that Wippien has VPN support and uses XMPP for the messaging part. I thought that it maybe might be a good idea to have a XEP for VPN via XMPP. I think this could be achieved quite well with Jingle. We would just need a XEP which specifies how the packets should be transfered over the tunnel established by Jingle. What do you think? Maybe PPP over Jingle? XMP? ;-) Why limit ourselves to point-to-point networking when we can do multi- point networking? -- Kurt
Re: [Standards] XMPP VPN?
On Dec 12, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Jonathan Schleifer wrote: Well, I recently saw that Wippien has VPN support and uses XMPP for the messaging part. I thought that it maybe might be a good idea to have a XEP for VPN via XMPP. I think this could be achieved quite well with Jingle. We would just need a XEP which specifies how the packets should be transfered over the tunnel established by Jingle. What do you think? Why not just specify IP over XMPP? (sounds like something for publication on 1 April 2009)
Re: [Standards] XMPP VPN?
Andreas Monitzer wrote: > On Dec 12, 2008, at 20:09, Jonathan Schleifer wrote: > >> Well, I recently saw that Wippien has VPN support and uses XMPP for >> the messaging part. I thought that it maybe might be a good idea to >> have a XEP for VPN via XMPP. I think this could be achieved quite well >> with Jingle. We would just need a XEP which specifies how the packets >> should be transfered over the tunnel established by Jingle. What do >> you think? > > Maybe PPP over Jingle? XMP? ;-) /psa
Re: [Standards] XMPP VPN?
On Dec 12, 2008, at 20:09, Jonathan Schleifer wrote: Well, I recently saw that Wippien has VPN support and uses XMPP for the messaging part. I thought that it maybe might be a good idea to have a XEP for VPN via XMPP. I think this could be achieved quite well with Jingle. We would just need a XEP which specifies how the packets should be transfered over the tunnel established by Jingle. What do you think? Maybe PPP over Jingle? andy
