On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Niklas Gustavsson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
That being said, we currently support providing an "external" IP address for passive connection, for use when we're behind a NAT. But, we do not support providing an "external" port, for this kind of use. We surely could, if people are really interested in port mapping passive connections. I doubt it is that useful, but who knows :-) /niklas
