>
> | a) Does an internal client have to be put in passive mode so that the
> | ftp module at the gw will work?
>
> No. PASV mode is the one that works (mostly) even if you *don't*
> have the ip_masq_ftp module loaded. The module is needed to support
> active mode, and long file transfers.
I see.
Why is it needed for long file transfers?
>
> The answer wasn't a), but this question puzzles me. At least on the
> PC, I can't find any way to get web browsers (NS and IE) to use
> *active* mode for FTP. They *always* use passive mode.
I see.
The reason I conjectured they might be using active mode was that
I had been getting a log "Illegal PORT command" error messages from
Netscape's ftp client, and I thought this may have had to do with it.
Secondly, IE 5.0's setup has an option "Use Web Based FTP"
(in Options->Advanced) --- I was wondering what that's all about.
The help says "it works through all proxies, but only supports directory
listings and downloads. No uploads". I wonder what that means.
>
> Incoming connections for what?
For a simple TCP server such as http or sshd.
>
> | Should I try the "ipmasqadm" command?
> | If I do, I get
> |
> | > [root@c80384-a rc.d]# ipmasqadm portfw -l
> | > portfw: setsockopt failed: Invalid argument
> | > Could not open "/proc/net/ip_masq/portfw"
> | > Could not open "/proc/net/ip_portfw"
> | > Check if you have enabled portforwarding
>
> Did you?
Did I enable it? I don't know. The kernel config does not present
me with such an option. See my earlier mail for the relevant section
from my kernel config file.
The files in /proc/net/ it's complained about do not exist.
>
> | What could be wrong? Do I need to apply kernel patches or should
> | this work with a plain 2.2.6 kernel?
>
> No patches are needed for port forwarding in general, it is build in
> in the 2.2 kernels. But it does need to be enabled, just like IP
> forwarding. I'm running 2.0.36, so I can't tell you specifically how
> to do that.
Ok.
>
> OTOH, port forwarding alone is not enough to let you run a masqed FTP
> server. You'd also need a trivial kernel patch and a re-write of the
> ip_masq_ftp module similiar to the one I did for the 2.0 kernels.
>
That's fine. I mean, it would be nice if that worked, but sshd,
httpd and X11 are more important to me at this point.
Thanks for your reply.
- Godmar
_______________________________________________
Masq maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://tiffany.indyramp.com/mailman/listinfo/masq
Admin requests can be handled by web (above) or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
