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 ;)
