[Samba] UNICAST cross-subnet browsing, Port 445 vs. 139, and Win2k

Andy Levine andyl at epicrealm.com
Sun Sep 8 15:33:01 GMT 2002

Andrew Bartlett wrote:

> Probably better brought up on samba-technical, now that I can confirm
> that it's a known, real bug.  We just haven't fully digested the
> consequences :-)  (and the fact that 2.2 is bitten by it - I was under
> the impression it was 3.0 only, but we had a lot of merging a release or
> two back).
> Now, what we need to figure out is how to deal with this.  Is is just
> that we contact 445, or is there somthing else wrong with our querys
> (somehow influenced by our use of port 445).
I "dealt" with this with a recently submitted patch to force browse
synchronization to occur on port 139 instead. A subtly placed call to
cli_set_port() in the function sync_child() solved this handily !!

>In the meantime forcing port 139 makes sense (becouse NetBIOS
> browse sync doesn't make sense on 445 anyway - it's meant to be for
> 'NetBIOSless' smb...
I totally agree. Browse sync'ing is inherently a NetBIOS thing and SHOULD
occur on 139.

Andy Levine
Senior Software Architect

More information about the samba mailing list