🚀 go-pugleaf

In cox.internet.discussion.athomeconversion <cMUd8.4613$jC3.187004@news1.east.cox.net> Arthur Hagen <art@broomstick.com> wrote:
> You forget some scenarios:  You have two hosts who both need to be able to
> connect as a client to external non-PASV ftp servers.  With a shared IP and
> NAT, this is not possible, as the NAT router has no way of knowing which

Unless, of course, the router contains support for FTP. As the RP114
does. Non-PASV incoming connections are associated with the outbound
control connection, and bypass the normal processing in favor of special
processing for the FTP protocol. This is also how non-PASV FTP works on
the RP114 with the default destination host disabled.

> send the remote host its current IP and get a reply back.  Having a routable
> IP for multiple hosts is important for other client software too, like X and
> NFS (and possibly gnutella, but that isn't allowed on Cox networks anyhow I

I'd argue that having a routable IP address when dealing with X and NFS
is the worst thing in the world. They don't call it Nightmare File System
for nothing, and having X openly accessible is equivalent to handing anyone
who wants it your password unless you compile from sources with Kerberos
access control enabled.

As I said, if you really want the setup you're looking at, you'd be
advised to either a) use pseudo-static addresses and deal with the
very occasional address changes by hand or b) switch to an account type
or a provider that does static addresses ( Cox business standard may
fit this bill if they've got the price down into the hundred-dollar range,
as they seem to have changed the TOS to allow servers ).

-- 
It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations.
                                -- JRR Tolkien