The network owner fixed the problem by installing a proxy ftp server. Thanks!
Glen Brian Ashe writes: >Jonathan, > >On Thursday 07 February 2002 08:20, you said something about: >> How do you know that their ftp program switches to the LAN ip address? >> >> I think that it's a firewall issue. FTP, by default, opens up a >> connection BACK TO the clients to transmit data (including directory >> listings). Your firewall is most likely blocking those connections. Have >> your clients use "passive mode" and see if they connect (passive mode >> causes the data transfers to occur on the original connection, rather than >> starting one that goes back to the client. > >Actually, to clarify (just picking nits really, but I think it's important to >be accurate), in "standard" FTP, the client would initiate the control >connection and the server would initiate the data connection back to it. This >was a problem for firewalls because the server would normally choose a port >that was blocked by the average firewall. Using PASV (passive) mode, the >client intiates both the control _and_ the data ports and the server responds >appropriately. > >> > RH 6.2, ProFtpd server, behind a firewall. I'm having problems with some >> > clients who are trying to ftp into the machine. They can access the >> > server with the www IP address, but immediately after authentication >> > their ftp program switches to the LAN ip address, 198... and they are not >> > able to upload files. My guess is that the local ftp client is reading >> > the LAN ipaddress from "hostname -i" and switching to it. >> > >> > 1) How do I change the ipaddress the server sends back to ftp programs, >> > etc., so it reads the necessary IP address; 216.254... but doesn't knock >> > me off the LAN. >> > >> > 2) Is there a way to configure these Windows ftp clients so they don't do >> > a hostname -i lookup, or so that ProFTPd sends back the correct IP >> > address? > >You may want to try the above, but I won't say if it will work or not. > >My suggestion... >Are you using a "VirtualHost" directive? If not, you probably should be. That >way you control how the server is reporting what it should be called. Else >you are likely having the connection initialized at the first address, being >given the internal hostname (not the virtual one you first tried to connect >on) and then having that address in turn resolved differently. > >-- >Brian Ashe CTO >Dee-Web Software Services, LLC. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >_______________________________________________ >Redhat-list mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
