Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl at
Thu Sep 13 15:09:02 GMT 2001

On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 03:00:13PM -0700, Conrad Minshall wrote:

> To break the non-synonomous URL form, just add a new transport in 5 years
> or so.  With the synonomous URL form, the new transport slides on in.
> Under a non-synonomous model a third prefix should be created.  Yuck.  

i really do not see this happening.

if you imagine that it might apply for ipv4 and ipv6, well that
doesn't work, because you just fit in at the IP layer, not
the tcp one.

adding a new URL form only becomes a relevant issue if the
file serving transport is a significant deviation from the
cifs/smb standard that it _really_ warrants a different

the distinction here is that NetBIOS - a transport in its
own right, that has been proxied over several other
transports, is going away.

oh: yes, of course!

that's another one to add to the melting pot!!!

if you specify smb:// then you are also specifying,
"if you have IPX/SPX, and NETBEUI as _well_ as TCP/IP,
then please try resolving the hostname on those, too,
oh, and also try a NetBIOS session  request there, too"

[not that anyone but SCO, Windows, QnX and OS/2 _do_ that...

and if you specify cifs:// you are specifically saying,
"to hell with IPX/SPX, NETBEUI, just TCP/IP _thank_ you".

do you _really_ think that ipv6 is not going to
be enough [or ipv8], for the next.... mmm... 20 years?


More information about the samba-technical mailing list