smbwrapper use of port 139 vs 445... Ok to force to 139?
vorlon at netexpress.net
Mon Dec 23 20:07:00 GMT 2002
On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 02:51:08PM -0500, Derrell.Lipman at UnwiredUniverse.com wrote:
> My last known problem with smbwrapper on Linux is that sometimes hosts in a
> workgroup, or shares on a host, are not returned by the cli_Net*Enum()
> functions. On another list (debian.something), there is currently a
> discussion of the fact that using port 445 can cause this problem, and in
> fact, when I force the port to 139, the problem goes away.
> I'm not terribly familiar with the protocol differences between what's sent on
> port 139 and what's sent on port 445.
> *Specifically for the purposes of smbwrapper...*
> 1. Is there a reason not to force the port number to 139?
> 2. Is there any service provided on port 445, not provided on port 139, that's
> required for smbwrapper to return the correct data?
> 3. Are there any servers that don't provide port 139 service at all?
> 4. If #3 is "yes", what about trying 139 and falling back to 445 rather than
> the current implementation which is the other way around?
I understand the reason for using 445 as primary and falling back to 139
is that it's much more efficient (both on setup and during data transfer)
than doing it the other way around.
For the purposes of getting a browse list, connecting to port 139 is a
must. There are ways to get the equivalent of a browse list via AD, but
I don't think it's LDAP-only, so port 445 doesn't even do any good in
For the actual enumeration of and connecting to shares, port 445 is
likely to give some performance increase due to the lower protocol
overhead. You can also configure newer Windows machines (XP at least) to
*not* support NetBIOS at all, in which case they'll only be listening on
port 445. OTOH, there are also plenty of older machines (NT4 and below)
that are 139-only.
Theoretically, it might be optimal to use port 139 to collect browse
lists, and then use 445-else-139 for everything else. Barring that, I
think 139-else-445 would be the best option.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20021223/b30b77b0/attachment.bin
More information about the samba-technical