Re: netibios name len
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Christopher R. Hertel wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 04:08:07AM +1030, Richard Sharpe wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Christopher R. Hertel wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 03:17:05PM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > > > hi there, > > > > > > > > I had some troubles while configuring a samba printer. The "host" > > > > component of the netbios resource name was longer than 15 bytes and my > > > > smbclient (version 2.2.5) truncates the netbois host name at that > > > > length. > > > > > > NetBIOS names are 16 bytes maximum, and Microsoft reserves the 16th byte > > > for special use. > > > > Hmmm, this makes it sound like Microsoft has some sort of evil intentions > > :-) > > > > When IBM (Barry Feigenbaum) designed the protocol back in '84, the 16th > > byte was reserved as a type byte then. > > Some notes on this: > > - I know that Barry Feigenbaum developed the SMB (originally BAF) > protocol. I had not heard that he was also responsible for NetBIOS > (though it certainly seems plausible). > > - I have found contradictory information regarding IBM's use of the 16th > byte. Some sources show no indication that it was 'reserved', others > (mostly secondary sources) say that it was. My now lost copy of the 1984 IBM programmers guide on PC Network Program showed the 16'th byte being reserved and listed 0x00 and 0x20 as two types of interest. > - The RFCs, published in 1987, make no mention of the 16th byte being > reserved. > > - The suffix byte value used to indicate the SMB Server Service is <20>. > That's a space--the *same* character used as padding. So, a name padded > to 16 bytes would be the same as a name padded to 15 bytes with a type > byte of <20>. > > - To my knowledge, the vast majority (though clearly not all) of the > defined NetBIOS suffix byte values in use today are Microsoft's fault. > It could be, however, that those are the only documented ones. > > - As to Microsoft having evil intentions, I think that's just well-earned > paranoia on your part. :) :) :) > > Thus my statement that Microsoft reserves the 16th byte. At present, > they're in charge. The evidence I have available to me is unclear > regarding the status of that byte back in the early 80's, but in my book > I've written that it was likely a practice initiated by IBM. > > Captain Pedantic -)- > ;) > > -- Regards - Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at]ns.aus.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org, sharpe[at]ethereal.com, http://www.richardsharpe.com
Re: netibios name len
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 04:08:07AM +1030, Richard Sharpe wrote: > On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Christopher R. Hertel wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 03:17:05PM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > > hi there, > > > > > > I had some troubles while configuring a samba printer. The "host" > > > component of the netbios resource name was longer than 15 bytes and my > > > smbclient (version 2.2.5) truncates the netbois host name at that > > > length. > > > > NetBIOS names are 16 bytes maximum, and Microsoft reserves the 16th byte > > for special use. > > Hmmm, this makes it sound like Microsoft has some sort of evil intentions > :-) > > When IBM (Barry Feigenbaum) designed the protocol back in '84, the 16th > byte was reserved as a type byte then. Some notes on this: - I know that Barry Feigenbaum developed the SMB (originally BAF) protocol. I had not heard that he was also responsible for NetBIOS (though it certainly seems plausible). - I have found contradictory information regarding IBM's use of the 16th byte. Some sources show no indication that it was 'reserved', others (mostly secondary sources) say that it was. - The RFCs, published in 1987, make no mention of the 16th byte being reserved. - The suffix byte value used to indicate the SMB Server Service is <20>. That's a space--the *same* character used as padding. So, a name padded to 16 bytes would be the same as a name padded to 15 bytes with a type byte of <20>. - To my knowledge, the vast majority (though clearly not all) of the defined NetBIOS suffix byte values in use today are Microsoft's fault. It could be, however, that those are the only documented ones. - As to Microsoft having evil intentions, I think that's just well-earned paranoia on your part. :) :) :) Thus my statement that Microsoft reserves the 16th byte. At present, they're in charge. The evidence I have available to me is unclear regarding the status of that byte back in the early 80's, but in my book I've written that it was likely a practice initiated by IBM. Captain Pedantic -)- ;) -- 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]
Re: netibios name len
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Christopher R. Hertel wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 03:17:05PM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > hi there, > > > > I had some troubles while configuring a samba printer. The "host" > > component of the netbios resource name was longer than 15 bytes and my > > smbclient (version 2.2.5) truncates the netbois host name at that > > length. > > NetBIOS names are 16 bytes maximum, and Microsoft reserves the 16th byte > for special use. Hmmm, this makes it sound like Microsoft has some sort of evil intentions :-) When IBM (Barry Feigenbaum) designed the protocol back in '84, the 16th byte was reserved as a type byte then. Regards - Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at]ns.aus.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org, sharpe[at]ethereal.com, http://www.richardsharpe.com
Re: netibios name len
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 03:17:05PM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote: > hi there, > > I had some troubles while configuring a samba printer. The "host" > component of the netbios resource name was longer than 15 bytes and my > smbclient (version 2.2.5) truncates the netbois host name at that > length. NetBIOS names are 16 bytes maximum, and Microsoft reserves the 16th byte for special use. > Looking at rfc 1002 I have found a 64 byte limit for resource name, but > apparently there is no strict constraint for the host name, so I thought > it could be useful to remove this hard-coded limit and admit 64 byte > long netbios names. is it right??? I'm afraid not. As I said above, NetBIOS names are 16 bytes maximum and always have been. They are encoded to a format that is 32-bytes long and then encoded again before they are sent on the wire. Check your Ethereal traces. The 63-byte limit is for a label in the scope ID. It is the same limit that was originally imposed upon DNS labels. It's 63 bytes because the value must fit into a 6-bit field. The two additional bits are used as flags. See the docs at http://ubiqx.org/cifs/NetBIOS.html Chris -)- -- 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]
netibios name len
hi there, I had some troubles while configuring a samba printer. The "host" component of the netbios resource name was longer than 15 bytes and my smbclient (version 2.2.5) truncates the netbois host name at that length. Looking at rfc 1002 I have found a 64 byte limit for resource name, but apparently there is no strict constraint for the host name, so I thought it could be useful to remove this hard-coded limit and admit 64 byte long netbios names. is it right??? I've attached a small patch against 2.2.7 source that does this... Paolo CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by replying to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you samba-2.2.7.diff Description: Binary data
