Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!hardees.rutgers.edu!patterso From: patterso@hardees.rutgers.edu (Ross Patterson) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: simultaneous connections Message-ID: Date: 18 Oct 88 16:42:20 GMT References: <8810181218.AA11951@gateway.mitre.org> Organization: Rutgers Univ., CCIS Lines: 20 >(The server which received the PASV command does only a passive open on >the data connection, and the other one does an active open. There is a Yes, that's right. I went back and re-read RFC959, and that's exactly what happens. 20/20 hindsight reminds me that what I suggested couldn't possibly work, since it would mean opening a connection between well-known ports on two different systems, precluding the use of three-party FTP between those systems by more than one user at a time. >My admittedly superficial reading of the BFTP RFC led me to believe that >BFTP doesn't alter any of this, but rather provides a different sort of >a frontend to the FTP operation. Yes, but it depends on the three-party model. I meant it as an illustration of why three-party FTP exists (there are a number of people out there who regard it as "hokey"). Ross Patterson Rutgers University Center for Computer and Information Services