Trace now attached (forgot to attach it to the initial CAR request) On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Steve French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In trying to understand whether Windows Server 2008 allows SMB2 > connections over port 139 (due to firewalls for example on 445), I > noticed that it is not documented whether SMB2 connections over port > 445 require first sending a RFC1001 SessionInitialize over the socket > (as SMB/CIFS does). Our experiments indicated that port 139 requests > require the SessionInitalize request, but also showed that connections > to *SMBSERVER failed (*SMBSERVER is the default called name used by > modern Microsoft clients) with "Negative Session Response Called Name > Not Present" (see frames 47 and 48 of attached trace). It appears > that the behavior of this has changed in Windows Server 2008 which > requires that the user now specify the target system's netbios name in > the session initialize (which did work see frames 8 and 9 of the > attached trace). > > Attached is a trace of two mounts to Windows Server 2008 Enterprise - > the first a mount which worked and specified the servernetbiosname in > RFC1001 session init (followed by an umount tree disconnect, ulogoff > of that smb session which is not of interest here) and the second > mount which failed (see frames 47 and 48) which specified "*SMBSERVER" > as the called name and failed. > > I would like to see documentation of SMB and SMB2 documents updated to > reflect when the use of *SMBSERVER is permitted and any other > differences in use of 139 (e.g. if SMB2 has additional limitations > when run over port 139 instead of 445). > -- > Thanks, > > Steve >
-- Thanks, Steve _______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list [email protected] https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
