Shane C Branch said: > > > > >> >>OK, more accurately nmbd is starting enough to give you the [OK} then >>dying. > > Odd. this time the stop registered an [OK] for both smbd and nmbd, after I > edited smb.conf and commented out the interfaces line Good to hear. A Google search suggests this, so maybe there is bug that shows up when using interfaces? >> >>Sorry, I assumed you were trying to use Samba only on the internal >>interface. What happens if you comment this line out and let Samba >> figure >>it out? > > Running smbclient -L servername is still failing, but at least it looks > like > both pieces started. Can't help you with that, because I've always had DNS and/or WINS to do name resolution. If you are using broadcasts I believe that it takes a maximum of 12 minutes to get on the browse list. Are you talking about on the local machine? For example: [whooper@xxxxxxxx ~] $ smbclient -L myserver >> >>BTW - Hiding the IPs just makes it a pain to troubleshoot, for all I know >>you have 192.168.0.1/24 192.168.0.2/20... > > The IPs are different. The internal one is 192.168.1.4, but I'd rather not > reveal the external one. I will say it is on a class a address with a 20 > bit > mask. Also, I'm pretty confident that line is formatted correctly, so the > actual address shouldn't matter. They are two completely different schemes > on > two completely different networks. But as the interfaces line is currently > commented out, it shouldn't really matter. [insert dicussion of the evils of running smb on the internet...] -- William Hooper
