<1D> names Group or Unique names ...
John H Terpstra
jht at samba.org
Wed Nov 27 06:03:01 GMT 2002
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> 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
That was the bright side of potentiality. The dark side is that M$
My rant was intended to demonstrate that users who do their research
correctly will get even more confused.
Given the level of mis-information already at large in respect of the role
of the LMB / DMB and domain control, this is a hot potatoe patch. We
constantly find ourselves having to explain how to get browsing to work.
Our first challenge is to get users over the barrier of their own lack of
knowledge while still attempting to explain what they think they see.
Conflicting M$ info, together with a total change in behaviour of how the
1D name gets handled does NOTHING to clear the air for those who want a
So in any case it means we DO need to update our documentation.
> 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.)
- John T.
John H Terpstra
Email: jht at samba.org
More information about the samba-technical