Mapping drive to Samba share in another subnet issue - SMB

This is a discussion on Mapping drive to Samba share in another subnet issue - SMB ; Hi there, I'm relatively new to Samba so I hope this isn't too much of a noob question. I have an AIX server running Samba 2.2.7 (unable to update to 3.0.x due to OS version) that I'd like to be ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Mapping drive to Samba share in another subnet issue

  1. Mapping drive to Samba share in another subnet issue

    Hi there,
    I'm relatively new to Samba so I hope this isn't too much of a noob
    question. I have an AIX server running Samba 2.2.7 (unable to update
    to 3.0.x due to OS version) that I'd like to be able to get Windows XP
    clients to map a drive to the Samba shares I've created. When the XP
    machines and the Samba server are on the same subnet, it works great.
    When I move the server to a different subnet, any pre-existing XP
    drive mappings still work but I'm not able to recreate the mappings.
    All traffic seems to be passing back and forth through the firewall
    but for whatever reason, I've tried NAT'ing the IP for the Samba
    server as well as just do a straight routing to the private IP of the
    Samba server - nothing seems to work.

    Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks!


  2. Re: Mapping drive to Samba share in another subnet issue

    On 2007-06-25, Rick H wrote:
    > Hi there,
    > I'm relatively new to Samba so I hope this isn't too much of a noob
    > question. I have an AIX server running Samba 2.2.7 (unable to update
    > to 3.0.x due to OS version) that I'd like to be able to get Windows XP
    > clients to map a drive to the Samba shares I've created. When the XP
    > machines and the Samba server are on the same subnet, it works great.
    > When I move the server to a different subnet, any pre-existing XP
    > drive mappings still work but I'm not able to recreate the mappings.
    > All traffic seems to be passing back and forth through the firewall
    > but for whatever reason, I've tried NAT'ing the IP for the Samba
    > server as well as just do a straight routing to the private IP of the
    > Samba server - nothing seems to work.
    >
    > Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.


    Assuming that Samba works the same way "real" Windows does, there's
    some broadcast nonsense that needs carrying between the subnets (sorry
    to be a bit vague - I haven't been involved with the dark side for some
    years). What we used to do was define "helper" addresses on the Cisco
    kit, such that all tcp/udp broadcasts using ports 137, 138 & 139
    were carried across the routers, which normally drop broadcasts.

    There may be a better way of doing it now ...


    --
    "If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker." ~ Albert Einstein
    [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org uk]

  3. Re: Mapping drive to Samba share in another subnet issue

    On Jun 25, 11:26 pm, Huge wrote:
    > On 2007-06-25, Rick H wrote:
    >
    > > Hi there,
    > > I'm relatively new to Samba so I hope this isn't too much of a noob
    > > question. I have an AIX server running Samba 2.2.7 (unable to update
    > > to 3.0.x due to OS version) that I'd like to be able to get Windows XP
    > > clients to map a drive to the Samba shares I've created. When the XP
    > > machines and the Samba server are on the same subnet, it works great.
    > > When I move the server to a different subnet, any pre-existing XP
    > > drive mappings still work but I'm not able to recreate the mappings.
    > > All traffic seems to be passing back and forth through the firewall
    > > but for whatever reason, I've tried NAT'ing the IP for the Samba
    > > server as well as just do a straight routing to the private IP of the
    > > Samba server - nothing seems to work.

    >
    > > Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

    >
    > Assuming that Samba works the same way "real" Windows does, there's
    > some broadcast nonsense that needs carrying between the subnets (sorry
    > to be a bit vague - I haven't been involved with the dark side for some
    > years). What we used to do was define "helper" addresses on the Cisco
    > kit, such that all tcp/udp broadcasts using ports 137, 138 & 139
    > were carried across the routers, which normally drop broadcasts.
    >
    > There may be a better way of doing it now ...
    >
    > --
    > "If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker." ~ Albert Einstein
    > [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org uk]


    Thanks. I'll see what I can do with the firewall policies to help it
    along.
    Cheers,
    Rick


+ Reply to Thread