If it is all the NAT to blame, how could NAT devices translate the FTPS PASV responses?
SZ On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Kristof Gajsek <kris...@cyberkiko.com>wrote: > >I have a nagging feeling that NAT address manipulation may only happen > >with FTP clients, if it fails then people use passive mode. > > This issue happens in passive mode. When FTP client sends PASV command it > gets a response which contains private IP address... > > >Adding the same feature as FileZilla FTP client is not hard, since the > >server public IP address is available from the socket. Doing the same on > >an FTP server is much harder, and really needs a public STUN server (as > >used for SIP for the same reason). > > ... so I guess only replacing IP address given by server in response to > PASV > with the public one (the one used to connect to the FTP server) should do > the trick (at least in this case). This does not need to be automatic or > fancy, I guess something like a property OverridePASVIP would be OK - it > would force ICS to use server IP plus port given in PASV response. > > Best regards > Kristof > -- > To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list > please goto http://lists.elists.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twsocket > Visit our website at http://www.overbyte.be > -- To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list please goto http://lists.elists.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twsocket Visit our website at http://www.overbyte.be
