Samba NTDOM under solaris 2.6

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, heinig wrote:

> Jem Atahan wrote:
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I have been doing battle with NTDOM on a Solaris 2.6 Sparc 2 for a couple of
> > days now. I am using the main CVS branch (which I got initially on Apr 1,
> > and refreshed today Apr 6).
> > 
> > I have followed the NTDOMAIN.txt with the exception of step 3, where I ran
> > the command smbpasswd -a -m BUG (the clients name is BUG). Encrypted
> > passwords seem to be working fine for simple filesharing.
> > 
> > When an BUG (NT4 SP3) tries to join the domain, it gets "The machine account
> > for this computer either does not exist or is not accessable." I have set
> > the debug level to 20 and pored through the results, but I am unable to find
> > an obvious error condition. To summarise the machine seems to connect to
> > IPC$ as guest, do an LSA_OPENPOLICY, two LSA_QUERYINFOPOLICY with
> > SID=S-1-5-21-123-456-789-123, and one LSA_CLOSE.
> > 
> > I have not included any logs as they are large, and I am unaware which bits
> > are relevant.
> > 
> > I have not seen any reference to NTDOM working on Solaris, letalone 2.6.
> > Should this work? If anyone else has got this combination to work, do they
> > have any tips for me?
> > 
> > Failing that, can anyone make any helpfull suggestions?
> > 
> > Thanks...
> 
> Hi Jem,
> 
> Your error message sounds rather familiar: if I translate it into the german (we're running the 
> kraut-ised version of NT 4.0 SP3) it sounds like what I got.
> I've got a similar set-up to you - Solaris 2.6 on a SPARCstation 20 with NT 4.0 SP3.
> 
> Try having a look at your network settings, in particular your netmask. I found that my netmask on 
> the Solaris box was set to 255.255.0.0 whereas the NT machine had 255.255.255.0 (which is 
> correct). Instead of complaining, NT's networking just behaved rather strangely - sometimes it 
> found Samba on the network, sometimes it couldn't be bothered...
> When I changed the netmask on the SPARCstation to what it should be (ie. 255.255.255.0) the 
> problems went away and we've now got a running configuration with domain logons.

gerald, thanks for this.  jem, if you have tcpdump or netmonitor, you will
be able to detect and analyse such problems.

jerry (carter!),

can you add this one into your FAQ?  that's two people in the last few
weeks with mis-configured subnet masks.  this is the most common problem
that another large CIFS vendor had, so much so that they put in code to
disconnect the network at installation time and reconnect with various
subnet masks looking for incorrectly configured Win95 and NT machines!
 
> By the way, if I may ask a rude question: you have remembered to add a machine account to your 
> smbpasswd file, haven't you? ie.
> 
> MACHINE$:123:MACHINE_NMB_PASSWD:MACHINE_NT_PASSWD:0080::

yes jem had, by using the new option "-m" smbpasswd -a -m MACHINE_NAME.

luke