svn commit: samba r12695 -
in branches/SAMBA_4_0/source/scripting/libjs: .
Christopher R. Hertel
crh at ubiqx.mn.org
Wed Jan 11 19:53:26 GMT 2006
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 02:34:00PM +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> David Collier-Brown wrote:
> > Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 09:42:28AM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote about
> >> 'Re: svn commit: samba r12695 - in
> >> branches/SAMBA_4_0/source/scripting/libjs: .':
> >>> Does windows allow such a name in 'system -> computer name'?
> >> Samba 3 allows it so it is necessary in some cases to have, in order
> >> to have a clean upgrade path.
> > Is this something that can be detected and optionally corrected
> > in an upgrading script?
> Yes, it could be detected and corrected. However, we could only fix this
> on the server that is being upgraded - If it is a DC, its domain members
> will break because we can't fix the NetBIOS name remotely. If it is a
> domain member, it won't be able to access its domain later on.
When NetBIOS was created, there was (probably) no thought of mapping
NetBIOS names into any other namespace. The dot had no meaning at that
time, so it was and is perfectly legitimate. The only reason it has
become an issue is that TCP/IP has won.
TCP/IP won, so DNS became the preferred namespace. It is also convenient
to have a single name to identify a machine, and a single name must meet
the most restrictive set of syntax rules.
...and that's the only reason that a dot should be discouraged in a
NetBIOS name. The problem has to do with the unintended overlap between
the NetBIOS namespace and the DNS namespace.
"Implementing CIFS - the Common Internet FileSystem" ISBN: 013047116X
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
More information about the samba-technical