Closed martinklepsch closed 10 years ago
Yeah, that could be nice to have. The signature could be more consistent with other commands though - look alright to you?
# Signature
overcast tunnel [instance] [local-port:remote-port...]
# Example
overcast tunnel instance.01 7733:4567 12345:67890
There is a difference between:
-L 4242:127.0.0.1:42042
and
-L 4242:actualhostname:42042 -N
I wonder how that could be handled? Maybe it's fine to assume that the localhost version is wanted? (other than that I like the signature you suggested)
Ah, right. We could allow for that like so:
overcast tunnel instance.01 7733:4567 12345:otherhost:67890
So if otherhost
is missing, we could (safely) assume 127.0.0.1
. Sound good?
Sounds solid!
Just thinking that tunneling ports might be useful:
to allow users to access port
4567
on the remote machine as if it is port7733
on their machine.What do you think?