future of samba. IPC$ / RPC explanation

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl at samba-tng.org
Tue Jan 8 11:41:48 GMT 2002

On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 05:52:27PM +0000, David Allan Finch wrote:
> Simo Sorce wrote:
> > It has been created as a file and print sharing tool, where MS forced then
> > to add support of a little amount of dce/rpc (and lately ldap) to maintain compatibility, this is the only reason why rpc made it's way into samba I think.
> Nope - SMB "is" an RPC protocol IFAIK the samba team

well, the SMB IPC$ share is a generic mechanism
that is used heavily for all kinds of RPC systems.

typically, it is used in NT to provide "Named Pipes".

one such named pipe is LANMAN.  this is a legacy service
that provides a real botch-job RPC mechanism.

> why samba as is works. To follow your logic
> to its extram "why use the kernels api for writing packets,
> we might as well right them direct to the card." :)
 yep! absolutely! *grin*.

 that's what it feels like i am being told, here, by
 jeremy, andrew [and now simo].

 i make a better, detailed analogy here that is really
 important for people to understand.

 the majority of people consider samba to be one program.

 it's not: it's actually about fifteen separate programs,
 all of which are bundled in on top of each other, with
 no clear distinctions between those programs.

 what i am trying to do is to get those programs separated
 out, so that they can be more easily maintained.

 it's _really_ important for samba and unix/linuxes future.

 important enough for me to put up with all sorts of
 shit that nearly caused me to have a nervous breakdown
 two years ago.

 people not fully up to speed on the issues involved would
 do well to read "http://www.samba-tng.org/docs/tng-arch/tng-arch.html"
 before responding to any of these threads.

 if you haven't read this document, you are likely to make
 misinformed or misleading statements that will just waste
 everyone's time.

 all best,


More information about the samba-technical mailing list