On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 10:44:54AM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > "Christopher R. Hertel" wrote: > > > Anyway, if the unexpected.tdb is the reason that winbindd needs nmbd, then > > I think it could be made optional. I imagine that winbindd would be > > sending regular name queries in order to find the PDC, probably looking > > for <ntdomain>#1B. The 1B address is actually the DMB identifier, but in > > Windows the DMB and PDC must be the same node. It is possible that a Node > > Status query is also being sent, to verify that the 1B node also has the > > 1C name registered (1C means "I am an NT Domain Controller). That could > > be an issue with a Samba DMB. If that's the case, though, W/95 can't be a > > PDC anyway so not getting a reply shouldn't be a problem. > > > > Again, I'm not in sync with the discussion so if that's totally bogus > > please disregard. > > We have to node status to get the *name* of the PDC, becouse the > NETLOGON RPC requires that. Windows machines to a NETLOGON Mailslot > message, but we don't do that at present.
So you join the domain without knowing the domain name? In order to do the node status, you first have to have an IP or DNS name for the node you want to query. How is that obtained? Curious... (in more ways than one) Chris -)----- PS. If it's only W/95 that responds incorrectly to the Node Status Query, then we really don't need the information in unexpected.tdb. -- 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]
