Re: smbfs, smbfsx, smbclient
On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, Kent West wrote:
> Brad wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Kent West wrote:
> >
> > > 4) Will the smbmount (or smbmount-2.2.x) command work over a dial-up
> > > connection? The dial-up connection is provided by my university, and
> > > that's where the server is located. My local IP (provided by the dial-up
> > > connection) has the same first two octets (150.252.x.x) as the rest of
> > > campus, but the third octet (and probably forth, but not necessarily) is
> > > different.
> >
> > i don't see why it wouldn't...
>
> Because before I posted to this list I searched the web and the mail
> archives and etc and somewhere in all that I read that samba (or smbfs,
> I forget) wouldn't work across routers and that it needed to be on the
> same LAN segment, but since I'm not a networking guru I'm not entirely
> sure if that applies here.
This is one of the areas where Samba actually works _better_ than windows.
For the most part, Samba works by broadcasting messages, which most
routers will not pass. If you don't have a WINS server properly set up,
the only computers you can reach by default are those you can reach by
broadcase.
Samba gives us a -I option, to explicitly state where to find the named
share. So windoze wouldn't be able to find big_guy on 199.150.x.y because
it's not broadcastable, but Samba can as long as you supply "-I
199.150.x.y"
> HOLD IT! STOP THE PRESSES!
>
> Oh, that's too weird...
>
> I just up-arrowed to recall the last time I tried it, and this time it
> worked!
> I had been trying it as root all this time because of the mount point
> not being mountable by westk. So as another test I tried mounting it
> using /home/westk/bub as my mount point logged in as westk, not root.
> Again, the same type error messages. So I "su"'d back to root and
> up-arrowed one last time as I said in the first sentence of this
> paragraph, and it worked.
>
> Something strange going on here....
I have no idea why it suddenly worked, my best guess is that it's
something to do with NT ;)
Reply to: