On 12/8/20 2:50 AM, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> On 12/7/20 4:08 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> When handling a PASV command, Squid creates a listening socket bound to
>> an ephemeral TCP port selected by the operating system. Ephemeral port
>> ranges are usually handled by your OS ephemeral ports settin
On 12/7/20 4:08 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
On 12/7/20 5:03 AM, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
I'm talking about the ports used by the clients to conect to Squid
(besides 21), using passive FTP (i.e. those returned by PASV command).
Just to avoid misunderstanding, "those returned by PASV command" shoul
On 12/7/20 5:03 AM, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> I'm talking about the ports used by the clients to conect to Squid
> (besides 21), using passive FTP (i.e. those returned by PASV command).
Just to avoid misunderstanding, "those returned by PASV command" should
be interpreted as "ports returned by Sq
On 12/6/20 8:41 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
AFAIK, FTP proxy is successfully used in some production environments,
but I bet that most Squid deployments do not use this feature. YMMV.
Thanks.
Is there a way to restrict the port range of the additional connections
(e.g. to 4-5)?
I do
On 12/6/20 10:26 AM, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
Is there a way to restrict the port range of the additional connections
(e.g. to 4-5)?
On 06.12.20 14:41, Alex Rousskov wrote:
I do not know what connections you are talking about (there are at least
four connections when it comes to a typic
Hi Andrea,
> I see this feature was introduced in 3.5 as an experimental one; at 4.13
> is it still so or is it considered stable and dependable?
We are using the squid ftp_port feature for some customers. So far, we have not
experienced any issues.
The only downside to using frox (from which we
On 12/6/20 10:26 AM, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> I see this feature was introduced in 3.5 as an experimental one; at 4.13
> is it still so or is it considered stable and dependable?
AFAIK, FTP proxy is successfully used in some production environments,
but I bet that most Squid deployments do not u
On 12/6/20 5:01 PM, Antony Stone wrote:
Oh, so you're in charge of both?
Yes.
___
squid-users mailing list
squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org
http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
On Sunday 06 December 2020 at 16:56:10, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> On 12/6/20 4:44 PM, Antony Stone wrote:
> > Where is the firewall, compared to your Squid proxy, in the network?
>
> Squid runs on the firewall itself.
>
> > I'm just wondering how you plan to use Squid's native FTP mode to bypass
On 12/6/20 4:44 PM, Antony Stone wrote:
Where is the firewall, compared to your Squid proxy, in the network?
Squid runs on the firewall itself.
I'm just wondering how you plan to use Squid's native FTP mode to bypass a
firewall, which is therefore presumably blocking FTP...?
It's not blo
On Sunday 06 December 2020 at 16:26:26, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I'm trying to evaulate FTP proxying with squid and I have a couple of
> questions.
> To be clear, I'm not talking about FTP through HTTP, but about the
> ftp_port option.
> I've used frox (http://frox.sourceforge.net/) i
On 12/12/2017 09:56 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 13/12/17 04:51, Sticher, Jascha wrote:
>> Is there a way (yet) to tell my first squid instance
>> to use another squid as a forward proxy with native FTP?
> The FTP traffic arriving at Squids ftp_port is converted from a stream
> of FTP messages t
On 13/12/17 04:51, Sticher, Jascha wrote:
Hi,
we're currently upgrading our proxy environment to squid 3.5.23 (Debian
Stretch) and would like to use the native FTP proxy feature to replace our old
FTP proxy solution (frox).
Due to some design choices, we have a proxy hierarchy for HTTP as wel
On 12/12/2017 08:51 AM, Sticher, Jascha wrote:
> Is there a way (yet) to tell my first squid instance to use another squid as
> a forward proxy with native FTP?
> IIRC, the cache_peer directive always uses HTTP requests, so this seems as a
> dead end.
You are probably right. IIRC, the FTP clie
14 matches
Mail list logo
