On Wed, 2020-12-16 at 22:39 +0300, Alex Orlov via samba wrote:> > @Rowland > > > > With your discussion you are moving my question in a quite wrong > direction.Why, because I have read such discussions > > about custom ports and saw that they didn?t give any good results. > > > > If you want you can consider the following reasons: > > * if I ask it, then I need it for configuration I want to build. > > * Modern service programs allow to set custom ports because they > provide flexibility in integration solutions. > > * Modern service programs don?t require virtual interfaces to > configure frontend and backend as they use ports. > > So, the question is not about why I need it, but if samba supports > these absolute normal modern requirements in 2020 or not. > > And if not, could anyone say if there are plans to implement it?No and No. Also, please understand that it is very normal and expected to be questioned about the reasons behind any questions here. We find many questions asked come from a set of assumptions that first need to be tested - the solution is very often in challenging those assumptions rather than in a change needed in Samba. Even if the assumptions hold, we need to understand the context to give the best advise. Finally, while we have offered per service port configuration in the past, we are trying to reduce the number of configuration options in Samba to keep things manageable and to ensure that it is harder for users to accidentally create un-tested and unworkable installations. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett (he/him) https://samba.org/~abartlet/ Samba Team Member (since 2001) https://samba.org Samba Team Lead, Catalyst IT https://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba
>> So, the question is not about why I need it, but if samba supports >> these absolute normal modern requirements in 2020 or not. >> >> And if not, could anyone say if there are plans to implement it? > > No and No.?.> Finally, while we have offered per service port configuration in the >past, we are trying to reduce the number of configuration options in >Samba to keep things manageable and to ensure that it is harder for >users to accidentally create un-tested and unworkable installations.?? If you are talking about ports that belong only to Samba, I can agree with you. ? However, if we are talking about external service ports, for example DNS, than this is a very controversial decision. It was?controversial in 2015 see your post https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2015-February/189631.html and it is very controversial in 2020. ? Of course, I am not a member of Samba Team, however, I hope that these arguments someone from the Team will find useful: ? 1) A good server software must be flexible to allow build different solutions.? 2) To use different services on one interface we use ports, but not virtual interfaces. 3) When?we use services we (in almost all configurations I saw) provide host:port. So, it is absolutely normally to make DNS forwarding not to IP, but to IP:port. 4) If we follow your logic that users can create un-tested and unworkable installations we need to forbid system administrators to edit configuration files. ? ? -- Best regards, Alex Orlov ? ?