sscott@camdev.UUCP (Steve Scott) (07/19/90)
Hello, HP-UX fans!
The following is an excerpted note from one of my Big Blue Buddies with
all company proprietary info deleted ;-)
I am not sure whether or not this is an HP or an IBM problem (although
my friend does not mention this sort of a failure on other vendor's
hardware/software).
Maybe someone from within the HP labs can help here???
--------------- Excerpted mail begins --------------------------
Subject: FTP PORT command failure from HP nodes
Steve, we have seen a problem for a long time where FTP sessions from IBM
TCPIP to an HP node would fail when the FTP application issued a PORT command.
By testing the PORT command manually, I find that HP nodes are not accepting
port arguments where the first decimal portion of the port address is 3 or
less (ie PORT 192,25,80,1,3,200). I found nothing in the RFC indicating a
limit or restriction.
Is there some HP documentation about FTP PORT command limits or someone we can
call to resolve this? (A remote site) has this problem too.
History:
FTWENG is an IBM 43xx machine at IP address 192.25.80.1 via an
8232 Ethernet interface box
CAMDEV is an HP370 at IP address 192.25.80.50 running HP-UX 7.0
To see the problem, FTP from FTWENG to an HP node (CAMDEV) and issue
QUOTE PORT 192,25,80,1,3,200
(this will fail)
QUOTE PORT 192,25,80,1,4,200
(this will work)
------------------ Excerpted mail ends -------------------------------
Any ideas out there?
--
Steve Scott UUCP: {texbell|texsun}!csccat!camdev!sscott
Motorola, Inc. Internet : sscott@mot.com Telephone : 1-817-232-6317karn@envy.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) (07/20/90)
In article <277@camdev.UUCP>, sscott@camdev.UUCP (Steve Scott) writes: > Steve, we have seen a problem for a long time where FTP sessions from IBM > TCPIP to an HP node would fail when the FTP application issued a PORT command. > By testing the PORT command manually, I find that HP nodes are not accepting > port arguments where the first decimal portion of the port address is 3 or > less (ie PORT 192,25,80,1,3,200). I found nothing in the RFC indicating a > limit or restriction. It's possible that the problem is not due to the hosts at all, but rather to an administrative restriction in the routers between them. Some sites block incoming TCP packets addressed to ports below 1024 as a heuristic to restrict externally originated TCP connections, because the Internet convention is to have servers listening on low numbered ports. Phil