Re: LVS-NAT Active FTP issue...

To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: LVS-NAT Active FTP issue...
From: Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 02:10:07 +0000 (UTC)
Mark de Vries <markdv.lvsuser@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005, Roberto Nibali wrote:
>> >> Is there an indication in RFC959 which states that this "behaviour" is
>> >> legal as well for active FTP?
>> >
>> > no-one requires code to obey standards to sell it ;-(
>> Well, vsftp is GPL and written by someone I happen to know even :). But
>> it must be RFC conformant or else clients would not be able to properly
>> interact with the server.
> As far as I understands the RFC leaves no room for a different src port
> for the data connection. It's not fixed at 20 but should be 1 below the
> controll port. Which is what ip_vs uses literally IIRC.

Still, it would be harmless enough to add an option, passed
as a module loading parameter to ip_vs_ftp, that allows an
alternate port. It would be globabl, and obviously there are
cases it wouldn't cover, but it would solve the problem at hand.

I guess the remaining question is, should the problem at hand be solved
in LVS.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>