Volker Lendecke wrote: > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 09:54:13PM -0600, Christopher R. Hertel wrote: >> That may seem to be in the "who cares" category, since those old transports >> are essentially dead (much more dead than NBT, or even NBF). Unfortunately, >> the code to handle the old transports is still there in Windows, so there >> are behaviors -- things like the timeouts you're talking about and the weird >> VC=0 shutdown behvior -- that exist because of these old disused transports. > > VC=0, how does Windows treat this facing NAT (masquerading) > networks? I've done tests in the past where Windows killed > valid connections from behind a NAT box when a new client > came in. I put a lot of info into [MS-CIFS] about how *and why* this works the way it does. See [MS-CIFS] 2.1.3. Unfortunately, since [MS-CIFS] applies only to W98, NT4, and earlier it doesn't tell you much about W2K and newer implementations. There's a KB article that talks about the problem a little: KB301673. I thought that there was a registry setting that would allow you to tell the Windows server NOT to close existing connections if it received a VC=0 from the same IP. Even when working with Microsoft I wasn't able to find anything like that, beyond what's in that KB article. Basically, they should give up on the VC=0 thing, since it's a throw-back to the days when OS/2 could run SMB over connectionless IPX transport over multiple modems in parallel. Chris -)----- -- "Implementing CIFS - the Common Internet FileSystem" ISBN: 013047116X Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/ -)----- Christopher R. Hertel jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/ -)----- ubiqx development, uninq. ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/ -)----- crh@xxxxxxxxxxxx OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/ -)----- crh@xxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
