I think tmux's model is due to being too closely modeled on GUI virtual desktops. It handles the multiple attached clients by only make On wide terminals I can split side-by-side, on narrow ones I can split top-above-bottom (and these can even be different for different clients connected to the server). The exact layout of panes is more of an ephemeral thing. I really prefer screen's functionality, instead.Įach pane can be independently switched to any of the pool of underlying ptys being managed. For terminals that are different sizes, it shoves everything into an area the minimum height and width of all attached clients, and displays everything outside that as a field of periods. Further, it supports multiple attachments by each having them see the same exact thing. This is approximately never what I want for a long-running thing I can detach from and reattach to, from a different terminal with different connections. The model is switching between windows, each of which can have some layout of panes.
#UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI SSH FOR MAC WINDOWS#
I hate tmux because the way it handles switching windows is terrible. You might be able to do it using, eg, WebRTC APIs, though I would be surprised if those aren't also subject to limits. You probably can't make a NAT choke with just simple web requests (even AJAX) any more. Total concurrent connection limits are also old news, but are not quite as old as per-domain limits. The result was a map with holes in it where some tiles failed to load.īrowsers have long had limits on concurrent connections per domain. Using Maps would load many tile images, which could overwhelm a NAT or CGNAT. This means some portion of the mappings held in memory are useless.Īs a specific example, many years ago Google Maps would routinely trigger failures. Your home NAT will have one set of mappings and the CGNAT another, and the two sets probably won't be exactly the same.
The CGNAT might have insufficient ports allocated to your service to keep up with your home NAT, resulting in timeouts or dropped mappings. When you have a home NAT and a carrier-grade NAT you may get an impedance mismatch of sorts. Making a lot of connections without closing them fills up NAT buffers. But if there's no FIN, the NAT is in the same case as it is with UDP.
#UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI SSH FOR MAC FREE#
TCP is connection oriented, and a NAT might rapidly free up resources when a connection is closed (ie, when the final FIN has been ACKed).
With no connection information this can only be done as an LRU cache or similar. This means a NAT needs to inspect UDP packets and retain a mapping to direct incoming UDP packets to the right place. UDP is connectionless, but typically a UDP communication is bidirectional. Unfortunately, a) some routers are less sophisticated and will still drop your connections even if you do keep-alives and such, b) no matter what you do, memory is a finite resource and if the router doesn't have a lot of RAM, connections will be dropped. So when your router is close to running out of space you just drop the connection that has been idling the longest. So the classic solution to this problem is to use an LRU cache. This also makes your router vulnerable to an attack where an attacker can just open a bunch of connections and never close them, making your router eventually run out of memory.
Memory is a limited resource so you can't just have an unlimited number of these opened connections floating around. When router receives packets on 30.0.0.1:56000 it has to remember to redirect them to 10.0.0.2:55000. With NAT you have this problem where the router now also has to keep track of opened TCP connections.Į.g if you have a router with local IP 10.0.0.1 and external IP 30.0.0.1 and you are 10.0.0.2:55000 connecting to 230.0.0.1:443 router will have to allocate a port on it's external interface (let's say 56000) and remember it (this is the key part). Without NAT the only 2 parties that need to know anything about a TCP connection are client and server. This happens because there's NAT (network address translation) happening somewhere.
0 kommentar(er)
