Well known port 990 was removed from the RFC by the IETF. However, once
an application has been accepted by IANA to assign a well known port to the
list, it is not removed just because IETF made changes to the RFC. I have had
to fight this battle more than once since I have to deal with the army
>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 9:21 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chase,
John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-snip-
>> Can one ftpd
>> process listen on both 21 and 990 at the same time?
>
> I had "ass.u.me"-d so, having become accustomed to most "mainframe"
> software having the ability to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Date:Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:03:17 -0500
From:"Chase, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: More SSL/TLS and FTP woes
Hi, All,
I couldn't find anything relevant to the "problem du jour" in the
archives or t
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Joel Ivey
>
> ?? Should you not have a separate ftpd for 990 traffic?
Hmmm.. You may have a point there.. In fact, you may have
"the" point there.
> Can one ftpd
> process listen on both 21 and 990
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:38:12 -0500, Chase, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Note that the "well-known port" in either case is for the "control"
>connection; the "data" connection is "randomly" assigned in either case.
The "randomly" part is often the cause of failure of secure ftp through
firewa
?? Should you not have a separate ftpd for 990 traffic? Can one ftpd
process listen on both 21 and 990 at the same time?
>> You're specifying TLSPORT 990 in tcp (ftpsdata I think), and
>> 990 in the
>> bluezone ftp connection config, correct? You're starting a
>> separate ftpd
>> for the 9
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Joel Ivey
>
> You're specifying TLSPORT 990 in tcp (ftpsdata I think), and
> 990 in the
> bluezone ftp connection config, correct? You're starting a
> separate ftpd
> for the 990 port?
Yes. No.
-jc-
--
You're specifying TLSPORT 990 in tcp (ftpsdata I think), and 990 in the
bluezone ftp connection config, correct? You're starting a separate ftpd
for the 990 port?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instruction
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Joel Ivey
>
> John, I think IBM no longer recommends port 990, see II13516.
Thanks. Very informative. "Back to square two." :-)
-jc-
--
For
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Hal Merritt
>
> I have to ask: why you care? You can control FTP's behavior
> in FTPSDATA and FTPCDATA respectively.
We perceive a need to be able to accommodate both secure and unsecure
FTP without having to speci
John, I think IBM no longer recommends port 990, see II13516.Also, most
of our grief with ftps came from firewall issues. "Connection refused" was
a common error when the z/OS firewall was not allowing that incoming
traffic. We favor ssh over ftps. Is your Bluezone client internal to
your
al Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chase, John
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 9:03 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: More SSL/TLS and FTP woes
Hi, All,
I couldn't find anything relevant to the "problem du jour" in t
Hi, All,
I couldn't find anything relevant to the "problem du jour" in the
archives or the CS for z/OS 1.7 TCPIP Implementation Volume 2 Redbook,
so..
I'm able to employ SSL/TLS for FTP using the Bluezone FTP client, but
only if I configure it to use port 21 and "AUTH_TLS". I cannot get it
w
13 matches
Mail list logo
