"Christopher R. Hertel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Derrell, > > Can you give me a better idea of what you are trying to do? > > Above, you say you are trying to find all hosts that are members of a given > workgroup. The question is: why? What is it that you are actually trying > to accomplish?
I'm working on providing a tree-style view of the network in a fashion similar to what Windows Explorer does. The top level of an SMB/CIFS network is something like "Microsoft Windows Network". The next level down is the list of workgroups/domains within the network; then the hosts within each workgroup; then the shares within each share, etc. I don't know what version of Windows will be the master browser, and I don't want to force it by using Samba as the master browser. Therefore I have to be able to enumerate the hosts within a workgroup regardless of what versions of Windows happen to be on the network. > Keep in mind that there is a *very* big difference between the set of hosts > that are members of a workgroup and the set of servers offering services > within that workgroup. Two distinct systems are used to gather those two > lists. The latter works fine. If I already know the host name, I can see the shares on that host. The problem is enumerating the hosts within a workgroup. In the case of smbwrapper and smbsh, one is supposed to be able to do: ls /smb to see the list of workgroups/domains, and ls /smb/WORKGROUP to see the list of hosts within the workgroup "WORKGROUP", and ls /smb/WORKGROUP/HOST to see a list of shares on the computer called "HOST". All of these work with the method implemented in smbwrapper, except for enumerating the list of hosts within a workgroup where the master browser for the workgroup is a Windows 98 or Windows 95 machine. If there is a Windows 2000 server acting as the master browser for the workgroup, then obtaining the list of hosts within the workgroup works fine. However, the cli_session_request() call fails (gets a result of 0x83 from the peer) when the master browser is a win98 machine, so the list of hosts within the workgroup is therefore unavailable. Does this help clarify the problem? If not, please query me again and I'll try to explain differently. Thanks for your help! Derrell