[jcifs] Re: SMB URL

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:

> I outlined my best effort in another message.  Luke, you replied with:

> > >   Note, by the way, that the decision to use port 139 or port 445 is made
> > >   based on whether or not we detect NBT.  Now that I think of it,
> > >   there is no reason to try both ports *if* we go to the trouble of
> > >   discovering NBT by sending queries.

> > yes there is.

> > samba may be running on both ports, is resolved via a WINS
> > server but not via DNS.  going to 445 will save a round-trip.

> > a dual-mode NT4/NT5-domain server may not be accessible /
> > correctly configured to be reached via DNS but is accessible
> > via Broadcast-mode NetBIOS, but again, it's still running
> > both 139 and 445.

> If these servers are running both SMB/NBT and CIFS/TCP then it doesn't
> matter which transport we use, or to which port we connect.

What happens if a single server has processes listening on both port 139 and
port 445, but the services provided on each port are different?  This is
entirely possible with a solution built on Samba.  Do you include the port
number in the URL in order to disambiguate?

> The point I was trying to make, however, is that one possible mechanism
> for figuring out how to resolve "smb://name/" or "cifs://name/" is to
> determine whether the remote system is running NBT at all.  If it is,
> then use SMB/NBT semantics and defaults.  If not, then use CIFS/TCP
> semantics and defaults.

In the above case, will this work if the crazy admin is running SMB/NBT on
port 445?

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer