simo.sorce at polimi.it
Fri Dec 29 03:18:47 GMT 2000
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> > I think we are trying to solve the same problem and that our solutions are
> > not far off. Let me know if anyone knows any reason why my suggestion
> > that the browsing service be considered a special case won't work.
> > Again:
> > smb://
> > - Provides a list of workgroups and ntdomains.
> > smb://name/
> > - If <name> is a server name (responds to name#20) then list the available
> > shares on that server.
> > - If <name> is a workgroup/ntdomain name (responds to name#1d) then
> > ennumerate the browse list.
> > - If <name> is a DNS name or IP address then assume it is a file server
> > (I think you have to do a reverse lookup anyway).
> > smb://name/service/...
> > - Any time you have a service specified you know that <name> is a server.
> > How'm I doin?
> As long as a workgroup name and a server name are guaranteed to never collide,
> then this sounds workable.
> There's one scenario I'm still concerned may pose a practical problem, I'm
> hoping someone can tell me if this is a real danger or not. Most SMB clients
> on a Netbios network that spans subnets are hybrid nodes; they will query a
> WINS server, and fall back to broadcast if the name is not found. However,
> particularly on networks lacking centralized IT (e.g., university networks),
> it's possible to have a hybrid node that shares a subnet with (misconfigured)
> broadcast nodes. If a machine on a remote subnet registers the server name
> BLEE with the WINS server, and a machine on the local subnet declares itself
> the LMB for workgroup BLEE, then I believe existing clients will be able to
> ignore the conflict and see both workgroup BLEE and server BLEE. If we
> overload <name> in the URL smb://<name>/ to mean
> either-a-workgroup-or-a-server,-depending, then one of the two above will not
> be addressable with a URL (well, unless you default to workgroup and address
> the server by name).
> This is a pathological scenario, but I know first-hand that there are plenty
> of pathological Windows networks out there in the world. Question is, does
> this configuration work with existing clients, and if so, what do we do about
> it? Do we ignore the problem and blame it on the broken network, or do we
> adapt the URL syntax so that we never have to query the network to resolve an
the proposed workgroup#server syntax would resolve also this case forcing
"workgroup" to be the workgroup into which you want to find a server and
not the misconfigured servername.
will list the BLEE serser's shares as usual
will force to give the server list of workgroup BLEE
Simo Sorce - Integrazione Sistemi Unix/Windows - Politecnico di Milano
E-mail: simo.sorce at polimi.it
Tel.int: 02 2399 2425 - Fax.int. 02 2399 2451
Be happy, use Linux!
More information about the samba-technical