From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jack Bowling Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 03:00:33 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] About HTB , bandwidth limiting for ftp port... Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org ** Reply to message from "Martin A. Brown" on Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:37:33 -0600 (CST) > Hi there Dhirendra, > > : Okay now I put on a rule for FTP port 21 for 100Kbps. Now when I am > : retriving data from ftp server I think the port is different when doing > : passive ftp transfer. If I am not wrong then a new dynamic port is sent > : by the ftp server to the client.. and then client initiates a new > : connection on that port and then the real ftp data transfer happens. > > Yes. I think FTP should be summarily executed. It has been plaguing us > since the beginnings of firewalls and NAT. Sadly, another spiritually > impoverished but well-known operating system has two basic options for > file transfer: HTTP ("the Internet", of course!), and FTP (for experts!). > Of course, on the other side of the divide, people (ab)use ssh for all > sorts of nefarious purposes....... (anybody remember a recent article in > some print periodical detailing NFS over ssh?) Not trying to be argumentative or start a useless tangential thread here, but none other than Frank da Cruz provides his reason why he thinks ftp is better than ssh/scp at the following link: http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/ftpclient.html Note he is coming at this as the developer of the most capable comm program ever. jb -- Jack Bowling mailto:jbinpg@shaw.ca Prince George, BC _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/