New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature request: Support for RFC 6384 (FTP ALG) #114

Open
toreanderson opened this Issue Nov 18, 2014 · 4 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@toreanderson
Contributor

toreanderson commented Nov 18, 2014

Currently, FTP won't work through Jool's NAT64, as shown here from an IPv6-only client:

$ wget -O/dev/null ftp://ftp.uib.no/pub/BUPDATA/BUPKURS_ODBC.doc
--2014-11-18 16:31:42--  ftp://ftp.uib.no/pub/BUPDATA/BUPKURS_ODBC.doc
           => ‘/dev/null’
Resolving ftp.uib.no (ftp.uib.no)... 64:ff9b::81b1:1e1b
Connecting to ftp.uib.no (ftp.uib.no)|64:ff9b::81b1:1e1b|:21... connected.
Logging in as anonymous ... Logged in!
==> SYST ... done.    ==> PWD ... done.
==> TYPE I ... done.  ==> CWD (1) /pub/BUPDATA ... done.
==> SIZE BUPKURS_ODBC.doc ... 107520
==> EPSV ... ==> LPSV ... 
Cannot initiate PASV transfer.
==> EPRT ... [...hangs...]

A packet capture shows why it fails:

507 453.802038 2a02:c0:400:104:225:b5ff:fe02:9c -> 64:ff9b::81b1:1e1b FTP 94 Request: EPSV 2
508 453.808675 64:ff9b::81b1:1e1b -> 2a02:c0:400:104:225:b5ff:fe02:9c FTP 117 Response: 522 Bad network protocol.
509 453.808749 2a02:c0:400:104:225:b5ff:fe02:9c -> 64:ff9b::81b1:1e1b FTP 92 Request: LPSV
510 453.815331 64:ff9b::81b1:1e1b -> 2a02:c0:400:104:225:b5ff:fe02:9c FTP 112 Response: 500 Unknown command.

RFC 6384 specifices how a NAT64 could rewrite FTP protocol data in order to make this work. Perhaps that would be a nice feature addition for Jool?

@SilentT-FR

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@SilentT-FR

SilentT-FR Apr 5, 2015

The problem apear only when the ftp server was in passive mode

SilentT-FR commented Apr 5, 2015

The problem apear only when the ftp server was in passive mode

@ydahhrk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ydahhrk

ydahhrk Apr 15, 2015

Member

The problem apear only when the ftp server was in passive mode

This is a little strange. The RFC says both "active" and "passive" should fail. "extended passive" is the only one that should work by default.

When you say "only in passive mode", were you considering "active" mode?

Member

ydahhrk commented Apr 15, 2015

The problem apear only when the ftp server was in passive mode

This is a little strange. The RFC says both "active" and "passive" should fail. "extended passive" is the only one that should work by default.

When you say "only in passive mode", were you considering "active" mode?

@SilentT-FR

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@SilentT-FR

SilentT-FR May 24, 2015

Sorry for the mistake
yes in active and pasive mode fail
just the Extended passive mode works

SilentT-FR commented May 24, 2015

Sorry for the mistake
yes in active and pasive mode fail
just the Extended passive mode works

@ydahhrk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ydahhrk

ydahhrk Feb 17, 2016

Member

(I'm updating issue status.)
There is no way this is going to make it for the next release; everything else is already in the testing phase while FTP is still in diapers and looking moody.
Clearing milestone.

Member

ydahhrk commented Feb 17, 2016

(I'm updating issue status.)
There is no way this is going to make it for the next release; everything else is already in the testing phase while FTP is still in diapers and looking moody.
Clearing milestone.

@ydahhrk ydahhrk removed this from the 3.5.0 milestone Feb 17, 2016

@ydahhrk ydahhrk removed their assignment Sep 26, 2016

@ydahhrk ydahhrk modified the milestone: 4.1.0 Jun 5, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment