On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 21:38, Shawn wrote: > I'm reading through a book on Samba 3 and it looks as though they are > advocating WINS as the best choice for name resolution. I find this hard to > believe
Me too. :-P > as Microsoft has moved away from WINS themselves and back to DNS. Kinda, sorta... in typical Microsoft fashion. ;-) It's RFC standards compliant, but of course there are specific Microsoft networking additions to complicate matters (e.g. SRV records, et al). > Am I missing something? IS WINS the best choice? Depends on the networking scenario. Basically, WINS is your choice if you have any significant number of pre-Windows 2000 hosts (read 9x/NT). Here's the backdrop: WINS: dynamic NetBIOS name resolution (analogous to DNS) DNS: hierarchical host name resolution Ironically, WINS stands for Windows Internet Naming Service (IIRC). :-P As of Windows 2000, DNS is the best choice for name resolution. However, by default Windows clients are configured to use or fall back on old school NetBIOS name resolution (WINS, broadcast, LMHOSTS -- in that order, IIRC). This is ostensibly to maintain backwards compatibility. > I would think good old > DNS name resolution would be more than sufficient.... Considering all > computers (well, most) are configured to do name resolution through DNS > servers. Or maybe WINS is the best choice in a pure Windows network > environment where a Samba server might be the abnormal server? I should point out that having an Active Directory complicates matters name resolution as well (with regards to interoperability, anyway), but I'll let that lie for the moment. Let me know if you want more details. > > Thoughts? Comments? Sure, since you've already read this far... ;-) The more I have worked with and dug down into the inner workings of Microsoft network infrastructure technologies, the more I have come to appreciate Open Source, standards-compliant implementations and, as usual, choice. Samba is a great example. > > Shawn > > > (ps. I do know that my Windows networking knowledge is a little out of > date, so be gentle if I'm off my rocker regarding this.) > > > _______________________________________________ > clug-talk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
