Christopher Chan wrote:
Take a FTP server, which is behind such a nat device.Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
Technically agreed, except that route NAT for the same reason does not work for protocols not NAT friendly such as FTP, IRC or many other.
Regards Henrik
Could you explain this a bit more?
How would they be broken in a route nat for all protocols to a virtual ip that is sent a box on the inside network?
Client connects to 21 port, is redirected to ftp server at say 192.168.1.2:21 and issues dir command;
ftp server starts to listen on port 1025 for another connection from client for file list to be returned, therefore it sends client
PORT 192,168,1,2,1,1;
client gets this information and tries to connect to 192.168.1.2:1025 which is on his private network, therefore, this directory listing is not received to client.
Sorry. Not true in all cases. Where the gateway of the internal box = natbox, src ip get replaced with natbox set ip for the nat rule. If gateway of the internal box is another natbox without the nat rule in place, yeah, you are right.
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
