I am playing with port 445. The only differences between an NBT session and a non-NBT (naked) session are:
- The NBT session is generally (but not exclusively) carried on port 139, while the naked session is generally (but not exclusively) carred on port 445. - After the initial TCP connection, NBT sends a SESSION REQUEST message and the server is supposed to respond with a POSITIVE or NEGATIVE SESSION RESPONSE. Using naked transport that exchange is skipped. My thoughts on this: - The sensible thing to do is to write the server so that it will respond to an NBT SESSION REQUEST if it gets one, and not care if it doesn't. I *think* that's what we do in Samba but I'm not sure (haven't tested). From my testing it appears, unfortunately, that W2K just ignores the NBT SESSION request if the request arrives on port 445. That's a shame, I think. It means that the client must assume that port 445 is always naked transport, and 139 is always NBT transport. A reasonable set of assumptions... but what happens if someone is redirecting services to other ports? Many people do this, I've learned (tunnelling via SSH, etc.). Which set of semantics do you use if the port number is not 139 or 445? The problem here is that W2K simply ignores the packet, so the client must decide whether to time-out waiting for a reply or to start sending SMBs before it knows if it got an error message back from the server. I am not sure what happens if it times out, but we have seen Windows behave strangely if it senses a delay. Perhaps the best way to handle this is to make the connection, try the NBT SESSION SETUP, if you get a response then go with it, if not then close the connection and try again without the NBT SESSION SETUP. Just curious what people think. Chris -)----- -- Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/ -)----- Christopher R. Hertel jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/ -)----- ubiqx development, uninq. ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/ -)----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/ -)----- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
