samba - Oct 2008 - Different IPs on a samba server #2

Ok, I have played with this some more.

Here is my setup.

I have a local network 10.0.x.x/255.255.0.0
I have an off site network 192.168.0.x/255.255.255.0
The samba server is also my wins server and has the ip 10.0.0.2 on my
local network.  This is the only NIC in the Samba server.
My firewall/router server shows the following from netstat -r

Destination---Gateway----------GenMask-----------Iface
192.168.0.0---*----------------255.255.255.0------eth2
10.0.0.0------*----------------255.255.0.0--------eth1
127.0.0.0-----*----------------255.0.0.0----------lo

eth1 is 10.0.0.1 (in the firewall/router)
eth2 is 192.168.0.254 (in the firewall/router)

Everything works fine from my local network as far as accessing the samba
server.  From the 192.168 network, it does not though.  If I go to a
workstation Start->Run and type in \\samba_servername it tells me the
network is not found.  If I type in \\samba_ipaddress\share then it gives
me a logon prompt, but it will never authenticate, it just keeps asking
for the password like I typed the wrong one.  Both of these work fine from
the 10.0. network.

I added 'hosts allow = 10.0 192.168.0 localhost' in the smb.conf
thinking
that this would allow both networks, but I guess this is not the case.

Is there anything else that I need to do to access the samba server?  It
is a domain controller as well (not sure if that will make any difference
as far as connection from the other IP addresses).

Any suggestions would be welcomed.  I am not sure if I need to be looking
at some routing in my firewall, or something in my Samba server.

-- 
Scott Mayo - System Administrator
Bloomfield Schools
PH: 573-568-5669  FA: 573-568-4565

Question: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
Answer: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?

you need a trailing dot, like

hosts allow = 10.0. 192.168.0. localhost

can your 10. network and 192.168. network ping each other?  are you running wins
server = yes and msdfs root = yes on the samba server?


sgmayo@mail.bloomfield.k12.mo.us wrote:
> Ok, I have played with this some more.
>
> Here is my setup.
>
> I have a local network 10.0.x.x/255.255.0.0
> I have an off site network 192.168.0.x/255.255.255.0
> The samba server is also my wins server and has the ip 10.0.0.2 on my
> local network.  This is the only NIC in the Samba server.
> My firewall/router server shows the following from netstat -r
>
> Destination---Gateway----------GenMask-----------Iface
> 192.168.0.0---*----------------255.255.255.0------eth2
> 10.0.0.0------*----------------255.255.0.0--------eth1
> 127.0.0.0-----*----------------255.0.0.0----------lo
>
> eth1 is 10.0.0.1 (in the firewall/router)
> eth2 is 192.168.0.254 (in the firewall/router)
>
> Everything works fine from my local network as far as accessing the samba
> server.  From the 192.168 network, it does not though.  If I go to a
> workstation Start->Run and type in \\samba_servername it tells me the
> network is not found.  If I type in \\samba_ipaddress\share then it gives
> me a logon prompt, but it will never authenticate, it just keeps asking
> for the password like I typed the wrong one.  Both of these work fine from
> the 10.0. network.
>
> I added 'hosts allow = 10.0 192.168.0 localhost' in the smb.conf
thinking
> that this would allow both networks, but I guess this is not the case.
>
> Is there anything else that I need to do to access the samba server?  It
> is a domain controller as well (not sure if that will make any difference
> as far as connection from the other IP addresses).
>
> Any suggestions would be welcomed.  I am not sure if I need to be looking
> at some routing in my firewall, or something in my Samba server.
>
>

Leonardo Boselli wrote:
> It occurred also to me, with a 100% win2000 (PDC and WS) network:
> wins is based on broadcasts. so these does not passed the routers, and
> yes, they need some time to propagate, even 4 or more hours !
> the way i resolved was this:
That must have been my problem.  I emailed back later that day that it
just started working and I had not done anything different (well, I had
done one other thing, but then I removed what I did and then it started
working).  I guess it just took a few hours for it to propagate.
>> Question: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>> Answer: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?
>
> since you have no idea on what part of the message you are replying to.
> of course is a worse idea to quote the entire message, either top or
> bottom.
>
Yep, I will agree.  Thanks for the reply.

-- 
Scott Mayo - System Administrator
Bloomfield Schools
PH: 573-568-5669  FA: 573-568-4565

Question: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
Answer: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?