On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Aidan Diffey <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for the information. This means that I have to re-think as I > require, for example, 100 devices to send information to my server at the > same time.
You could map more ports I guess, but read more below :-) > Back to the original question. Why does the connection not work when I am > not running as root? In these case, are you really running behind iptables? Because, it struck me that since you map the ports, the client will try to connect to the server on 10120 since that's what the server told him to do in the response to the PASV command. He will not know to connect on port 20. Why do you need to port map the data connection? Instead, could you not only port map the control socket (port 21) and then let the server pick a passive port >1024 (and if needed configure this in your firewall). /niklas
