[cifs-protocol] cifs client timeouts and hard/soft mounts

Volker Lendecke Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Sat Dec 4 01:13:21 MST 2010

On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 09:54:13PM -0600, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> That may seem to be in the "who cares" category, since those old transports
> are essentially dead (much more dead than NBT, or even NBF).  Unfortunately,
> the code to handle the old transports is still there in Windows, so there
> are behaviors -- things like the timeouts you're talking about and the weird
> VC=0 shutdown behvior -- that exist because of these old disused transports.

VC=0, how does Windows treat this facing NAT (masquerading)
networks? I've done tests in the past where Windows killed
valid connections from behind a NAT box when a new client
came in.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list