Deprecate the 'socket address' parameter and remove special handling?

simo idra at
Wed Jul 25 08:47:41 MDT 2012

On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 12:06 +1000, Dewayne Geraghty wrote: 
> I'm all for increasing simplicity, but isn't the purpose of "socket
> address=x.y.z.t" to enable samba to respond/listen to a specific address,
> particularly where there are many aliases on an interface. And the
> "interface=" statement to specify which of the interfaces, or ip/masks that
> a particular samba instance will service?
> Currently we run authentication services (heimdal/openldap) in one virtual
> machine(vm), and samba3 in another. I plan to insert samba4 onto the
> authentication server (no fileservices) and retain the samba3 server, and
> both running on the same physical machine. I'm concerned, with the removal
> of "socket address", will this approach be inhibited?

as pointed out in the previous emails, you can put ip address in the
'interfaces' parameter, and then use 'bind interfaces only = yes' to
limit samba to talk on those addresses only.

socket address is simply redundant and can be implemented by the above
options which is why we want to remove it.


Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list