Re: uucp via tcp through firewall fails
From: Jeff Liebermann (jeffl_at_comix.santa-cruz.ca.us)
Date: 02/14/04
- Next message: FyRE: "Re: SCO OpenServer 5.0.7 Supplements"
- Previous message: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: Need help with ODT 2.0"
- In reply to: Steve M. Fabac, Jr.: "uucp via tcp through firewall fails"
- Next in thread: Steve M. Fabac, Jr.: "Re: uucp via tcp through firewall fails"
- Reply: Steve M. Fabac, Jr.: "Re: uucp via tcp through firewall fails"
- Reply: Steve M. Fabac, Jr.: "Re: uucp via tcp through firewall fails"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:29:42 -0800
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:10:56 GMT, "Steve M. Fabac, Jr."
<smfabac@att.net> wrote:
>I reconfigured a new client's system to move the SCO 5.0.6 system behind the firewall
>(cayman 3546) and now uucp via tcp fails.
>
>Previously, the clients configuration put the UNIX box on the Internet naked, full access,
>very bad.
Bad idea. Firewalls are a good thing.
>I deleted the firewall setting that mapped the external WAN IP directly to the LAN IP of
>the
>UNIX system.
Also bad idea. That opens all ports to the Unix box which is almost
as bad as having it directly exposed to the internet.
>I have created pin-holes (Cayman's name for port mapping) allowing 22, 25, 113, 117, and
>540
>to reach the UNIX system.
Overkill. For UUCP over TCP, you only need a hole at port 540/TCP for
TCP. I'm currently getting my email via this method. However, I do
recall that I had to enable ident and open a port for it 113/TCP.
>Executing uutry -x9 hostname results in:
>> Device Type TCP wanted
>> ProtoStr = ee
>> Internal caller type TCP
>> tcpdial host host2, port 540
>> family: 2
>> port: 7170
>> addr: 4203fcd0
>> timed out
>> timeout tcpopen
>> ProtoStr = eee
>> Internal caller type TCP
>> tcpdial host host2, port 540
>> family: 2
>> port: 7170
>> addr: 4203fcd0
>> timed out
>> timeout tcpopen
>> getto ret -1
>> Call Failed: NO DEVICES AVAILABLE
>> lockname(/usr/spool/uucp/LCK..host2)
>> exit code 101
>> Conversation Complete: Status FAILED
>>
>> TM_cnt: 0
OK. An open to port 540 on the remote machine failed. Can you telnet
to port 540 on the remote machine (host2)? You should get a login:
prompt. Type some garbage <enter> and it should disconnect. If there
are other machines available behind your firewall, also try it from
there.
>After seeing the above, I created another pinhole for port 7170, rebooted the Cayman
>router
>and still get the same result.
No, no, no. The port 7190 is the *OUTGOING* port number on the LAN
side of your router, which is transparent. It will be a different
port number every time poll for mail. No need for any port
redirection.
>The pinholes I created are all TCP. Is uucp over tcp trying to make a udp connection?
Nope. TCP only.
>Any suggestions/comments welcome
Is there more than one router involved in this system? Duz the other
router work or is it also a new router?
The Cayman 3546 ADSL "gateway" has many features that drove me insane.
One was the ability to route multiple IP addresses through a single
connecting address to the ISP. This was quite useful and was one
reason why SBC supplied these routers with their 5 IP address service.
The other is that it make sharing a 5 IP roputed connection more
difficult than with a 5 IP bridged connection. I scribbled a short
description of how it works at:
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/crud/5IP.txt
The problem is that it really makes a mess of doing IP port
redirection. More simply, you cannot do IP port redirection if you're
using the 5IP *routed* IP topology, but can with the 5IP *bridged*
topology. I ended up using additional cheap routers to solve the
problem as scribbled in the above document.
-- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 (831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us jeffl@cruzio.com
- Next message: FyRE: "Re: SCO OpenServer 5.0.7 Supplements"
- Previous message: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: Need help with ODT 2.0"
- In reply to: Steve M. Fabac, Jr.: "uucp via tcp through firewall fails"
- Next in thread: Steve M. Fabac, Jr.: "Re: uucp via tcp through firewall fails"
- Reply: Steve M. Fabac, Jr.: "Re: uucp via tcp through firewall fails"
- Reply: Steve M. Fabac, Jr.: "Re: uucp via tcp through firewall fails"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|