NetBIOS-less SMB on port 445?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, Richard Sharpe wrote:

> At 07:50 AM 1/29/00 +1100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> >> Um...  How true to draft-leach-cifs-v1-spec-01.txt is it?
> >> 
> >
> >you know, i'm not sure if i looked at it very closely.  it's pretty
> >trivial, you know!  you just don't do a NetBIOS session request, you start
> >straight off with an SMBnegprot!
> 
> Yes, but you still use the 4-byte header, which is now only an SMB record
> size header.

correct.
 
> However, this NetBIOS-less SMB stuff is a major loss, as you can no longer
> do virtual servers.

YES I KNOW.

i xxxxing told microsoft about this and they xxxing refused to listen.
 
> Samba virtual servers are neat and have lots of uses.


the only way that this can now be done is to bind multiple ip addresses
and use gethostbyname() and getpeername().

then i head microsoft were having problems because they were using dynamic
dns and dhcp, and the lease times and cacheing were becoming inconsistent,
and they were getting the wrong info from getpeername() and
gethostbyname(), and they were refusing SMB connections as a result.

well, i hope they resolved it, and i hope _next_ time they'll damn well
listen (oh, we can't change it because we've already started the beta
program, so the spec's finalised because we've already implemented it)

i mean, honestly: how stupid can you get?

sorry, i will defend the corner that i think's sensible, even if
microsoft's in it too, and in this case, they're not.