[Samba] UNICAST cross-subnet browsing, Port 445 vs. 139, and Win2k
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.
Senior Software Architect
More information about the samba