Yes, this should be possible, but I have another question (also). Would it make more sense to have two different IP addresses rather than two different ports? Ports are probably more confusing to casual users, and ports also tend to have more firewall-related blockages. Plus, it sounds like you're doing this for phase-in/phase-out reasons (shifting unencrypted FTP to TLS-encrypted FTP), and while I suppose you could freeze the port numbers "forever," it'd probably be more graceful to use IP addresses.
For example, you could create: newftp.mycompany.com with TLS FTP service and tell users to start using it as step 1. Then, later, you could announce the phase-out of ftp.mycompany.com by a certain date. Finally, you phase out ftp.mycompany.com, but you keep both names aliased in your DNS and pointing to the single numeric that was always associated with newftp.mycompany.com. Anyway, do all that and it only requires one end user change, and it's a simpler change for them to understand and do (the IP address rather than the port). And no, I'm not a big fan of FTP either, especially if you're using it for application integration. File transfer is copying, with all the possible disadvantages associated with copying. So it's always a good idea to at least contemplate the question, "why am I copying?" and whether you can provide alternative, on-line access. (You almost always can.) - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific E-Mail: [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
