samba - Apr 2005 - smb ports feedback

Having read a few posts recently I thought I would do some testing.

Given XP's use of 445 and that I have a couple of networks where they only
have XP clients, I thought I would try setting smb ports to 445 only rather than
that suggested of just specifying 139.

This has worked well for XP clients with SP2.

However SP1, and presumably pre-SP1 clients, lose all sight of the NBT network.
Indeed they report an RPC error on start-up.

Alan

On Friday April 22 2005 4:01 pm, Alan Munday wrote:
> Having read a few posts recently I thought I would do some testing.
>
> Given XP's use of 445 and that I have a couple of networks where they
only
> have XP clients, I thought I would try setting smb ports to 445 only rather
> than that suggested of just specifying 139.
>
> This has worked well for XP clients with SP2.
>
> However SP1, and presumably pre-SP1 clients, lose all sight of the NBT
> network. Indeed they report an RPC error on start-up.
>
> Alan
Hmmm.  I also configured "smb ports = 445".  That has gotten rid of
those
annoying "getpeername failed" errors, and my mix of XP SP1 and SP2
clients
have had no problems.

Is there a "correct" or "preferred" setting, or is just
"whatever works"?

Dimitri

So that is were the getpeername's have been coming from.  I have been
trying to find a way to get rid of those and find what was generating
them.  But it appears we have a conflict where it will impact SP1 or
not.  As we have not updated to SP2 that could be a potential problem
for us.

AJ FitzGerald
SA/DBA
Five Mile Capital
Phone: 203-905-0929 


-----Original Message-----
From: Dimitri Yioulos [mailto:dyioulos@firstbhph.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 4:11 PM
To: samba@lists.samba.org
Subject: Re: [Samba] smb ports feedback [faked-from][heur]

On Friday April 22 2005 4:01 pm, Alan Munday wrote:
> Having read a few posts recently I thought I would do some testing.
>
> Given XP's use of 445 and that I have a couple of networks where they
only
> have XP clients, I thought I would try setting smb ports to 445 only
rather
> than that suggested of just specifying 139.
>
> This has worked well for XP clients with SP2.
>
> However SP1, and presumably pre-SP1 clients, lose all sight of the NBT
> network. Indeed they report an RPC error on start-up.
>
> Alan
Hmmm.  I also configured "smb ports = 445".  That has gotten rid of
those 
annoying "getpeername failed" errors, and my mix of XP SP1 and SP2
clients 
have had no problems.

Is there a "correct" or "preferred" setting, or is just
"whatever
works"?

Dimitri
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba



        
    
     
     
     
      
         
*******************************************************************
None of the information contained in this email message constitutes or should be
construed as investment advice or as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an
offer to buy any security.

The information contained in the e-mail message is intended for the exclusive
use of its intended addressee and may contain confidential or proprietary
information.  If you received this transmission in error, please notify the
sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.  Any use,
disclosure, or distribution of any part of this message by any unintended
recipient is strictly prohibited.
*******************************************************************

At 01:01 PM Friday, 4/22/2005, Alan wrote -=>
>Having read a few posts recently I thought I would do some testing.
>
>Given XP's use of 445 and that I have a couple of networks where they
only
>have XP clients, I thought I would try setting smb ports to 445 only 
>rather than that suggested of just specifying 139.
>
>This has worked well for XP clients with SP2.
>
>However SP1, and presumably pre-SP1 clients, lose all sight of the NBT 
>network. Indeed they report an RPC error on start-up.
Another option is to block 445 which forces XP to use 139 right away 
avoiding the errors.

http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2004-April/084048.html

I have yet to do a trace on this myself...

Ed Kasky
~~~~~~~~~
Randomly Generated Quote (345 of 477):
It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.