Laine Stump  (lainestump@rcn.com) wrote:

>At 08:14 PM 10/4/99 -0500, Bob Nestor wrote:
>>Interesting and I'm not disputing the documentation or the recomendation. 
>> What has me confused is this is my setup, and it works:
>>
>>map sn0 192.168.1.1/28 -> 0.0.0.0/32 portmap tcp/udp 1025:65535
>>map sn0 192.168.1.1/28 -> 0.0.0.0/32
>>map sn0 192.168.1.1/28 -> 0.0.0.0/32 proxy port 21 ftp/tcp
>>
>>I got this off some documentation about a year ago when I set my system 
>>up and it has never given me a problem.  Obviously the 0.0.0.0 IP address 
>>is dynamically updated when my link comes up.  The only difference I see 
>>between my setup and the non-working one is the tcp/udp port range.  
>>Could this be causing a problem?
>
>Are you sure that you're 1) testing from a machine *behind* the NAT box
>(not the NAT box itself), and 2) the FTP client on that box is using
>non-passive ftp? If the answer to either of these is false, then you aren't
>really testing the ftpproxy stuff - normal "dumb" NAT can handle passive
>ftp with no extra help needed. 

#1 Yes, I'm sure I'm testing from behind the NAT box
#2 No, I'm using passive ftp so that explains it

Thanks!  I'll change things around and make sure it still all works.

-bob