On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 3:23 PM, pisymbol . <pisymbol at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello:
>
> I am trying to use the net time command to sync a server:
>
> $ net ads time -S ale.hunt.com
>
> (hunt.com is just for internal use only)
>
> I see an immediate response like so:
>
> >>> NBT Session Packet
> NBT SessionReject
> Flags=0x0
> Length=1 (0x1)
> Reason=0x82
> Called name not present
>
> "Called name not present" - alright but....
>
> # nmblookup -A 192.168.17.53
> Looking up status of 192.168.17.53
> ALE <00> - M <ACTIVE>
> HUNT <00> - <GROUP> M <ACTIVE>
> HUNT <1c> - <GROUP> M <ACTIVE>
> ALE <20> - M <ACTIVE>
> HUNT <1b> - M <ACTIVE>
>
> MAC Address = 00-01-6C-2F-1A-A8
>
> If I do the same command a second time, it just works and continues to
> work from then on. Nice. But why? The net command debug output seemed to
> indicate it choose ALE#20 the first time it failed but that seems OK to me.
>
> Why does the first call to 'net ads time' fail with 0x82 but from
then
> after, it just succeeds?
>
> This only happens on the first call after the CentOS 6.5 x86-64 VM has
> been rebooted.
>
> # rpm -qa| grep samba
> samba-winbind-clients-3.6.9-164.el6.x86_64
> samba-winbind-3.6.9-164.el6.x86_64
> samba-client-3.6.9-164.el6.x86_64
> samba-common-3.6.9-164.el6.x86_64
>
> Very weird. I noticed source (3.6-stable) has a few interesting comments
> in this area:
>
> 858e63cab:
>
>
> 2948 /* This is the wrong place to put the error... JRA. */
>
Note, the original NetBIOS spec (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1002 ),
seems to indicate that 0x82 packets are non-fatal in certain cases:
CALLED NAME NOT PRESENT:
BEGIN
/*
* called name does not exist on
* remote node
*/
inform name discovery procedure
of possible error;
IF this is a P or M node THEN
BEGIN
/*
* Inform NetBIOS Name Server
* it has returned incorrect
* information.
*/
send NAME RELEASE REQUEST for called
name and IP address to
NetBIOS Name Server;
END
/* retry from beginning */
retarget = FALSE;
name_query = TRUE;
goto LOOP;
I have not looked at master, but wondering if someone would be kind to
explain to me what's really going on here?
-aps