<1D> names Group or Unique names ...

[Christopher R. Hertel]

On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 09:03:20PM -0800, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> 
> > Richard,
> > 
> > I think it's pretty clear that that's how it is now.  Part of John's
> > inquiry, though, was "has it always been thus?"  There is some
> > documentation from Microsoft that claims that the 1D LMB name should be a
> > group name.  In fact, if it *were* a group name the whole system would
> > probably work better.  Weenies.  They took a ball-peen hammer to their
> > own WINS implementation just to break it into working.
> 
> Yes, I agree that the LMB name should be a group name. The DMB clearly 
> has to be unique, though.

Does it?  I think that's a design question, really.  You can have two or
more WINS servers supporting a single network (as long as they are
sync'd).  Why not two or more DMBs?

If the DMB name were not nailed to the PDC status of a DC, and if the 1D
name were a "special group" name (that is, a group name that WINS
condescends to handle properly) then the you could easily have multiple 
DMBs.

The LMBs would query the WINS server for the domain<1B> group name and get 
back a list of IPs.  The LMB would use the first IP on the list and behave 
just as they do now, with the exception that they would contact the second 
on the list if the first is down, and so on.  The DMBs would also behave 
as they do now, except that they would retrieve the list of IPs and also 
coordinate (automatically) with the other DMBs for the domain.

Basically, it's the design of the browse system that's the problem.  
(...but we knew that.)

Chris -)-----

-- 
Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/     -)-----   Christopher R. Hertel
jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/   -)-----   ubiqx development, uninq.
ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/     -)-----   crh at ubiqx.mn.org
OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/    -)-----   crh at ubiqx.org