I don't have all the answers here but I did write up some information about the intentions behind the VC number, and the problems with doing anything other than ignoring it. See:
http://ubiqx.org/cifs/SMB.html#SMB.7 ...and scroll down a little. The interesting bit is probably in section 2.7.1.1. Chris -)----- On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:55:50PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote: > I was following an earlier thread "Samba doesn't free network resource > with XP clients", and in investigating the SessionSetup_and_X handling I > have a couple of questions. (I only looked at 2.2.7a (not 3.0)) > > 1) It appears that in reply_sesssetup_and_X(), the VC is in essence > ignored. When I look at an ethereal trace of browsing from a W2k > workstation, many SessionSetups are transacted for user anonymous, and > *new* uids are being issued. Is not reclaiming users by tracking VCs > chewing up pdb entries? Or is the uid simply being advanced without > *real* resource allocation for the guest user? > > 2) Is it possible to have multiple child smbds servicing one W2k > workstation? If so, under what conditions? I can only get it to use > the same negotiated session key over and over again. > > Thanks, > > Peter Hurley > -- 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]