At 02:55 PM 1/17/2002 -0600, Reasoner, Bob (PHES) wrote: >I'm running 3.2.2s and I'm trying to communicate from a freebsd server to >a freebsd host. I haven't tried opening port 20. Never knew that was >needed for FTP transfers, but I can't see any tunnels opening for port 20 >in my logs.
you shouldn't need to open 20 for active ftp, it should "just work". >Basically what happens is I see a tunnel for port 21 as the client >connects, then the 49154 port opens when the file transfer starts. If I >do a 0 to 0 port (all port) tunnel it works fine. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dan Swartzendruber >[<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 1:04 PM >To: Reasoner, Bob (PHES); '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >Subject: Re: [gb-users] FTP Tunnel? > >At 12:40 PM 1/17/2002 -0600, Reasoner, Bob (PHES) wrote: > >Shouldn't an Inbound tunnel opening port 21 from an alias IP to a PRO IP be > >sufficient to allow ftp transfers? I can get connected, but can't transfer > >(times out). If I review the logs I get an RAF block of tcp port > 49154. If > >I open everything I can see two tunnels activated one on port 21 and one on > >49154 (both tcp). This is the same whether I use "Passive" ftp clients or > >regular. > >this doesn't sound right. if it was an active client, it would be port 20, >not some >high numbered port? > > >It seems like this has been a problem since 3.2.0, but I don't recall the > >problem with older versions. > >there was in fact a bug (reported by me) where passive clients were not >working >properly if they were behind a NAT appliance of some sort. this is fixed >in 3.2.2 >(which i can confirm). can this be it? > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To subscribe to the digest version first unsubscribe, then > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
