ssh(1) documentation for -L and -R

[Peter Stuge]

Bert Wesarg wrote:
> >> totally misleading. It suggest that the host:port has anything
> >> to do with the corresponding side, which is not.
> >
> > The destination in both -L and -R is only ever used on the respective
> > side. host in -L is resolved locally, host in -R is resolved remotely.
> 
> But its exactly the other way around, isn't it? Ie. in -L
> port:host:hostport, the host is resolved on the remote side.

Yes, sorry, you are right of course. Too early in the morning for me.


> And the patch added exactly this to the documentation.

Right, maybe changing only the wording and not the parameter names is
a good middle road?


> I think adding 'remote' to the host name in -L does not makes it
> clearer that it will be resolved on the remote size.

I agree with that. I think it's better to keep it called host and use
prose to explain how it works.


//Peter