Just a quick Q
James OGorman
jameso at shf.org
Thu Jul 16 14:05:42 GMT 1998
Stephen Langasek wrote:
>
>
> How well this will work for you depends on how much functionality you're
> looking to get out of it. You do lose some capabilities by using ip masq
> instead of public IP, but all things considered it works pretty darn well
> when you have no choice but to masquerade. The big issue to look at is
> that IP masq does not normally let you make incoming TCP/IP connections
> through the masquerading firewall. For samba, this means no getting to
> shares on those Win95 boxes from your central site, basically.
Right now, I dont really see a time that there will be a share on the
Win 95 boxes at the remote site that I will need to get to from the main
network. But if I ever do, I like this option the best.
> * re-exporting smb shares. With smbmount under Linux, it should be
> possible to mount all the relevant data on the masqing server that you
> want the Win95 machines to share, then re-share it from smbd on that
> machine.
It sounds the most doable with a little amount of trouble, and something
that I will have to keep in the back of my head.
To tell the truth, playing around on a test machine while I wait for the
server to come in, this Samba stuff is fun. I had a little trouble at
first getting NT to broswe the Samba box, I did not have encrypted
passwords turned on and did not know for sure where to look (found it in
/usr/sbin, if I had been thinking I would have looked there....). Now I
got the NT machines working, but on 95 boxes when I try to browse it
pops up with a box that says connecting to $IPC and asks for a password
(no username field). I am sure it is just a matter of time before I get
that figured out as well.
Thanks for your help everyone, it is nice to know that others have done
this before as well.
Jim
More information about the samba
mailing list