Re: IPFW2+NAT stateful rules VS. FTP

2005-09-20 Thread Charles Swiger
On Sep 20, 2005, at 1:55 PM, Peter Rosa wrote: If you use "passive mode" FTP, that ought to work fine. If you use "active mode" FTP, you ought to use the FTP proxying built into NATD (see the -use_sockets and -punch_fw options), which is aware of the FTP data channel. Please, could you be litt

Re: IPFW2+NAT stateful rules VS. FTP

2005-09-20 Thread Peter Rosa
Hi all, I am not sure, if my post came here before, so I try again. Please, sorry if I re-post the same, but I still can not make it work. - Original message- Thanks for the reply but... > If you use "passive mode" FTP, that ought to work

Re: IPFW2+NAT stateful rules VS. FTP

2005-09-11 Thread Peter Rosa
Thanks for the reply but... > If you use "passive mode" FTP, that ought to work fine. If you use "active > mode" FTP, you ought to use the FTP proxying built into NATD (see the > -use_sockets and -punch_fw options), which is aware of the FTP data channel. > Please, could you be little more speci

Re: IPFW2+NAT stateful rules VS. FTP

2005-09-10 Thread Chuck Swiger
Peter Rosa wrote: [ ... ] Or is it better to use /etc/nad.conf to redirect all incomming connections on ports 20 and 21 to localhost? Any help is *very* appreciated :-) If you use "passive mode" FTP, that ought to work fine. If you use "active mode" FTP, you ought to use the FTP proxying bui