On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Michal Zalewski <[email protected]> wrote: > Err, the other way round obviously (passive requires server-side > support to rewrite IP and port data in FTP command responses behind > NAT, and punch a temporary hole in the firewall allowing the client to > connect back to the server on a high port;
Er, shouldn't it just need to do the latter? I've certainly done plenty of passive FTP through NAT that isn't rewriting anything. > active requires a > client-side support to rewrite PORT command if behind NAT, and punch a > hole for the server to connect back to the client). Right. --Amanda --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
