Skip to content
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 · 7 comments
Open

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

toreanderson opened this issue Nov 18, 2014 · 7 comments

Comments

@toreanderson
Copy link
Contributor

@toreanderson 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
Copy link

@SilentT-FR SilentT-FR commented Apr 5, 2015

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

@ydahhrk
Copy link
Member

@ydahhrk 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
Copy link

@SilentT-FR SilentT-FR commented May 24, 2015

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

@ydahhrk ydahhrk added this to the 3.5.0 milestone Nov 23, 2015
@ydahhrk ydahhrk removed this from the 4.1.0 milestone Nov 23, 2015
@ydahhrk ydahhrk self-assigned this Nov 24, 2015
@ydahhrk
Copy link
Member

@ydahhrk 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 added this to the 4.1.0 milestone Jun 5, 2017
@ydahhrk ydahhrk added this to the 4.1.0 milestone Jun 5, 2017
@ydahhrk ydahhrk removed this from the 4.1.0 milestone Jan 9, 2019
@wangchuanfang
Copy link

@wangchuanfang wangchuanfang commented May 15, 2019

Dear ydahhrk, is the feature of FTP support in development? When is it expected to come out

@ydahhrk
Copy link
Member

@ydahhrk ydahhrk commented May 15, 2019

@wangchuanfang
Copy link

@wangchuanfang wangchuanfang commented May 16, 2019

Thank you very much for your reply. I am looking forward to the release of the new version as soon as possible

@ydahhrk ydahhrk added the Status: Not Started label Aug 28, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants