[Samba] Not another SAMBA through a firewall post

randalls at bioinfo.wsu.edu randalls at bioinfo.wsu.edu
Mon Mar 8 08:22:02 MST 2010

Thanks, I will look into the bonding approach. 

Randall Svancara
Systems Administrator/DBA/Developer
Main Bioinformatics Laboratory

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brother Railgun of Reason" <alaric at caerllewys.net>
To: randalls at bioinfo.wsu.edu
Cc: "Kevin Keane" <subscription at kkeane.com>, samba at lists.samba.org
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2010 4:49:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Samba] Not another SAMBA through a firewall post

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:44:00PM -0800, randalls at bioinfo.wsu.edu wrote:
> Kevin,
> Thanks for the response. I was kind of thinking along the same lines 
> as what you described.  I disabled the second NIC and every samba 
> started working through the firewall.  I even wrote a simple perl 
> socket server and made the same observations as I did with Samba.
> Thanks,
> Randall Svancara

It's always been a pretty good rule of thumb that you should not have 
two active interfaces on the same subnet in the same machine unless 
either they're bonded together on a single IP, or one is a listen-only 
monitoring interface.  It will almost invariably cause problems.  Even a 
machine dual-homed on two different but connected subnets will sometimes 
create issues.

  Phil Stracchino, CDK#2     DoD#299792458     ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
  alaric at caerllewys.net   alaric at metrocast.net   phil at co.ordinate.org
         Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
                 It's not the years, it's the mileage.

More information about the samba mailing list