Thank you Alan for the detailed response. Neil >>> Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3/14/2007 5:35 PM >>> On Tuesday, 03/13/2007 at 07:43 AST, Neil Carson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thank you Alan for the response. > > So are you saying that since I cannot specify a passiveport range in > z/VM 3.1 (TCP/IP) I cannot > resolve the filelist problem while using z/VM 3.1 (TCP/IP)? If I do not > know which port TCP/IP will use > for datatransfer I guess I do not know which port to tell our ISP to > open up.
The question is one of policy, not capability. If you say that you want to allow active FTP with your z/VM system, they should be able to accomodate you, subject to limitations in their firewall software. Consider, too, that the firewall that protects the *client* may not allow inbound connections to non-standard port numbers, even if the firewall in front of VM allows the outbound connection. You may find yourself between an irresistable force and an immovable object. But that problem exists today: If two firewalls do not allow inbound connections to NON-well-known port numbers, then FTP can't be used at all. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
