[jcifs] [SOLVED] problem with NbtAddress.getAllByAddress()

[ashish]

yeah, many many thanks to Chris.
it seems to work for every type of microsoft box "as of now" if we set all
the flags to false.
But can we still have exceptions. I mean are there any conditions in which
setting all flags to false will not work but previous condition where B and
RD flag are set would work..




----- Original Message -----
From: Allen, Michael B (RSCH) <Michael_B_Allen at ml.com>
To: 'ashish' <ashishn at ntechra.com>; <crh at ubiqx.mn.org>
Cc: <jcifs at samba.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 4:40 PM
Subject: RE: [jcifs] [SOLVED] problem with NbtAddress.getAllByAddress()


> Ok, it was the broadcast and recursion desired flags. I guess XP's server
is a little pickier
> about responding to broadcast NodeStatus (and rightly so). You nailed it
Chris. Good job.
>
> Mike
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ashish [SMTP:ashishn at ntechra.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 7:39 PM
> > To: Allen, Michael B (RSCH); crh at ubiqx.mn.org
> > Cc: jcifs at samba.org
> > Subject: Re: [jcifs] problem with NbtAddress.getAllByAddress()
> >
> > yep, this seems to work..
> > and i have got the answer to my own query regarding hex code.It is 16th
byte
> > in the name.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Allen, Michael B (RSCH) <Michael_B_Allen at ml.com>
> > To: 'ashish' <ashishn at ntechra.com>; <crh at ubiqx.mn.org>
> > Cc: <jcifs at samba.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 3:45 PM
> > Subject: RE: [jcifs] problem with NbtAddress.getAllByAddress()
> >
> >
> > > Here Ashish, try this jar:
> > >
> > >   http://users.erols.com/mballen/jcifs-0.6.3uni.jar
> > >
> > > Does it solve your problem?
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: ashish [SMTP:ashishn at ntechra.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 6:23 PM
> > > > To: crh at ubiqx.mn.org
> > > > Cc: jcifs at samba.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [jcifs] problem with NbtAddress.getAllByAddress()
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I was just looking around different implemenations of netbios name
query
> > > > request.
> > > > I came across samba's implementation.
> > > > http://samba.org/doxygen/samba/2.2/namequery_8c-source.html
> > > >
> > > > Here, code does set all flags to false in " name_status_query() "
> > function.
> > > >
> > > > Ok, I have one more query. I am not able to figure out how the hex
code
> > > > related to name is populated.
> > > > Please help me out here...
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > ashish
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Christopher R. Hertel <crh at ubiqx.mn.org>
> > > > To: ashish <ashishn at ntechra.com>
> > > > Cc: <jcifs at samba.org>
> > > > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 2:49 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [jcifs] problem with NbtAddress.getAllByAddress()
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Sigh.
> > > > >
> > > > > Look, I'm sure this all makes sense in your mind, but you are
> > providing
> > > > > this information without context.  I can break down your hex
string,
> > but
> > > > > only because I'm steeped in NBT lore at this point.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sigh...
> > > > >
> > > > > \xa2\x48  Transaction ID
> > > > > \x00\x00  Query request, with all flags false.
> > > > > \x00\x01  QD_COUNT = 1
> > > > > \x00\x00
> > > > > \x00\x00
> > > > > \x00\x00
> > > > >
\x20\x43\x4b\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41
> > > > >
\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x00
> > > > > Name = "*\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0", Suffix = '\0'
> > > > > \x00\x21  Q_TYPE  = NBSTAT
> > > > > \x00\x01  Q_CLASS = IN
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay, the only potential differences I see are that jCIFS seems to
be
> > > > > generating a query with RD and B set.  These should be clear, to
be
> > > > > RFC-correct.  (Note: the RFCs have a typo that makes this unclear.
> > > > > RFC1002:4.2.17 shows the B flag in the NBSTAT query packet.  It
should
> > > > > show zero.)
> > > > >
> > > > > I have my own testing tools, and I can send NBSTAT queries with
these
> > bits
> > > > > turned on.  I have no trouble with W/95 and W/98 boxes.  I don't
have
> > XP
> > > > > to test, however.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no reason that a system would pay attention to these
bits,
> > > > > *unless* (to speed things up) someone were to write code that
simply
> > reads
> > > > > the entire two-byte flags field as a single short int.  This would
be
> > very
> > > > > fast, particularly since you wouldn't need to covert to/from
network
> > byte
> > > > > order.  Just read the two bytes.  Microsoft may have done
something
> > like
> > > > > this in newer code.  Again, I cannot test this right now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris -)-----
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/     -)-----   Christopher R.
> > Hertel
> > > > > jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/   -)-----   ubiqx
development,
> > > > uninq.
> > > > > ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/     -)-----   crh at ubiqx.mn.org
> > > > > OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/    -)-----   crh at ubiqx.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>