descend the network tree

[kitepilot at kitepilot.com]

> why do you recomend 'sshfs' over 'ssh'
They are entirely different things. 

Look at sshfs as 'mount' (or NFS)
sshfs allows you to 'mount' a remote directory to a local path. 

Look at SSH alone as 'telnet'.
It allows you to open a remote terminal. 

They meet at the protocol level.
sshfs uses SSH as 'transport' 

In other words.
THe speak the same dialect, but are talking about entirely different 
subjects. 


Question number 2:
inside of the 192.168.x.y:
ssh myuser at 192.168.x.y 

outside of the 192.168.x.y (say for example NNN.nnn.x.y)
ssh myuser at NNN.nnn.x.y 

If you were 'sshfs(ing)' then:
sshfs myuser at 192.168.x.y:/remote/path /my/local/path
or outside
sshfs myuser at NNN.nnn.x.y:/remote/path /my/local/path 

In other words:
The address is a matter for the routing protocol to resolve, if the address 
can be routed, and the SSH server is listening, it will answer.
ET 

 

Michael Havens writes: 

> thanks for the help. ssh is what I was looking for to descend it from my
> home network. why do you recomend 'sshfs' over 'ssh'? now..... suppose I'm
> trying to connect to it from a computer outside of the 192.168.x.y network.
> what tool would I use then? 
> 
> -- 
> :-)~MIKE~(-: