The RAS browsing issue is caused by the RAS client having to become its own subnet master browser, which happens fairly quickly. Once that happens, there is a fairly lengthy delay while the browse lists get built. IIRC, and I'll admit this is going back to 1996 when I last read about this stuff, a browse list can take up to 45 minutes to 'settle'.
And for what its worth, that particular problem isn't solely Microsoft's - IBM had a big hand in helping develop some of that, IIRC. The reason "this kind of crap never happens under unix" is because you don't often (ever?) use NetBIOS over TCP to connect to shares. In fact, you have to know the machine and its NFS exports, either manually or via NIS, which brings its own special issues. I'm going to leave the obvious flame bait about RFCs out of this - but I will say that the Unix world has a very narrow minded view of what the RFCs say, and more often than not have it backwards, thinking that the behavior/capabilities of specific applications (sendmail being the biggest) are what define the RFCs, when in reality it is very much the other way around. Roger ------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 9:44 PM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: RAS > > > > Why do clients who log in via RAS > > I often do this. I was half way through an email and the > phone rang, so > for some reason to clear my screen, I pressed CTRL-ENTER to send off > this email, without even finishing it. > > As I was saying, Why do clients who log in via RAS see less > than a user > logged in to the LAN? > > Now I'm going to make some rash assumptions here, but that's because I > use Unix and I use Windows, and I don't have problems with Unix. > > Users that log in and browse the network should be presented > with a list > of ALL machines on the domain, just as if they are connected to the > network, but they are not always. Sometimes they are even presented > with PARTIAL shares on a server and not all of them, even though when > they connect to the LAN, low and behold, they can see all the shares. > > I am rather frustrated at this because it's something that's > existed for > as long as I can remember. This kind of crap never happens > under Unix. > Always with Microsoft products. And even though it does, there's > probably some lame excuse as to why it happens. "Oh, some registry > setting by default is configured to stop any dialup connections from > being presented with a browse list, to conserve bandwidth." > > It wouldn't surprise me. > > "Upgrade to Service Pack 1 for Windows XP." Ugh. > > "Check to make sure there aren't any other protocols like IPX/SPX > enabled." No, there aren't. > > WHY does this happen and WHY are Microsoft products always to blame? > > Don't even get me started on Microsoft's RFC compliance. > > > > > -- > Adam Smith > Information Technology Officer > SAGE Automation Ltd. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.sageautomation.com > > > > ------ > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > ------ You are subscribed as [email protected] Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
