On Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Klaus Hartnegg wrote:> Am 24.04.2015 um 01:02 schrieb Carl G. Riches: >> I'm unable to join a Windows 7 PC >> to the Samba 4 domain when "hosts allow" is defined > >> hosts allow = 127 10.208.29. 10.108.29. > > Maybe the new version insists there must be a dot after the 127. >I put the dot in, to no avail. I also modified the line to include the netmasks: hosts allow = 127.0.0.0/8 10.208.29.0/23 10.108.29.0/24 and tried specifying specific hosts: hosts allow = 127.0.0.1 10.208.29.50 10.108.29.77 None of these changes affected the outcome. Is anyone else successfully using version 4.1.16 with the "hosts allow" configuration? Are there other configuration options that affect the "hosts allow" option? Thanks, Carl
On 24/04/15 17:13, Carl G. Riches wrote:> On Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Klaus Hartnegg wrote: > >> Am 24.04.2015 um 01:02 schrieb Carl G. Riches: >>> I'm unable to join a Windows 7 PC >>> to the Samba 4 domain when "hosts allow" is defined >> >>> hosts allow = 127 10.208.29. 10.108.29. >> >> Maybe the new version insists there must be a dot after the 127. >> > > I put the dot in, to no avail. I also modified the line to include > the netmasks: > > hosts allow = 127.0.0.0/8 10.208.29.0/23 10.108.29.0/24 > > and tried specifying specific hosts: > > hosts allow = 127.0.0.1 10.208.29.50 10.108.29.77 > > None of these changes affected the outcome. Is anyone else > successfully using version 4.1.16 with the "hosts allow" > configuration? Are there other configuration options that affect the > "hosts allow" option? > > Thanks, > CarlThe only one I know is that 127.0.0.1 is always allowed, so you could try removing it, don't know if this will make it work, but it shouldn't harm anything.
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Rowland Penny wrote:> On 24/04/15 17:13, Carl G. Riches wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Klaus Hartnegg wrote: >> >>> Am 24.04.2015 um 01:02 schrieb Carl G. Riches: >>>> I'm unable to join a Windows 7 PC >>>> to the Samba 4 domain when "hosts allow" is defined >>> >>>> hosts allow = 127 10.208.29. 10.108.29. >>> >>> Maybe the new version insists there must be a dot after the 127. >>> >> >> I put the dot in, to no avail. I also modified the line to include the >> netmasks: >> >> hosts allow = 127.0.0.0/8 10.208.29.0/23 10.108.29.0/24 >> >> and tried specifying specific hosts: >> >> hosts allow = 127.0.0.1 10.208.29.50 10.108.29.77 >> >> None of these changes affected the outcome. Is anyone else successfully >> using version 4.1.16 with the "hosts allow" configuration? Are there other >> configuration options that affect the "hosts allow" option? >> >> Thanks, >> Carl > > The only one I know is that 127.0.0.1 is always allowed, so you could try > removing it, don't know if this will make it work, but it shouldn't harm > anything. >I tried that setting and one other today: - I changed the setting to this: hosts allow (it's an empty value). I could join the PC to the domain. - I changed the setting to this: hosts allow = 10.208.29. 10.108.29. I could _not_ join the domain--got the "RPC Server is unavailable" message. Would it make sense to capture the network traffic between the client and server? If so, what are the ports I should be looking at, and what sort of messages would be passed during a domain join session? Thanks, Carl
Am 24.04.2015 um 18:13 schrieb Carl G. Riches:> Is anyone else successfully > using version 4.1.16 with the "hosts allow" configuration?Yes. Is it possible that your machines talk to each other via IPv6? Then they would use different IP addresses. Klaus
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015, Klaus Hartnegg wrote:> Am 24.04.2015 um 18:13 schrieb Carl G. Riches: >> Is anyone else successfully >> using version 4.1.16 with the "hosts allow" configuration? > > Yes. > > Is it possible that your machines talk to each other via IPv6? Then they > would use different IP addresses. >IPv6 is not an option for us at this time. Carl