"address family not supported" error - VMS

This is a discussion on "address family not supported" error - VMS ; Hi, Process Software MultiNet V5.2 Rev A-X, HP rx2660 (1.59GHz/9.0MB), OpenVMS I64 V8.3-1H1 I'm trying to set up CIFS T1.1 on this machine and it seems to be working. (Note that it requires each user account to have SYSLCK privilege ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: "address family not supported" error

  1. "address family not supported" error

    Hi,

    Process Software MultiNet V5.2 Rev A-X, HP rx2660 (1.59GHz/9.0MB), OpenVMS
    I64 V8.3-1H1

    I'm trying to set up CIFS T1.1 on this machine and it seems to be working.
    (Note that it requires each user account to have SYSLCK privilege by
    default, this will be fixed in due course I am told!)

    Today I tried to get this machine to join a Windows domain (actually our
    local Advanced Server PDC) but instead I saw this error:

    [2008/08/07 16:49:40, 3] DKA0:[SAMBA.V11_EFT.SOURCE.LIB]UTIL_SOCK.C;2868)
    Connecting to 192.168.1.2 at port 139
    [2008/08/07 16:49:40, 2] DKA0:[SAMBA.V11_EFT.SOURCE.LIB]UTIL_SOCK.C;2904)
    error connecting to 192.168.1.2:139 (address family not supported )

    Does this imply the CIFS routines have been compiled or linked in such a way
    that they are incompatible with MultiNet's socket library?

    Thanks,

    Jeremy Begg

  2. RE: "address family not supported" error

    MultiNet V5.n uses BSD 4.4 sockaddr data structures internally. These
    have 1 byte of length, 1 byte of address family, 2 bytes for port, and 4
    bytes for address (for IPv4). The drivers (BG and INET) provide
    backwards compatibility for the support of BSD 4.3 sockaddr data
    structures that prior versions of MultiNet used. (2 bytes of address
    family, 2 bytes for port, etc.) Which type of data structure is expected
    is determined by the IO function code - those that use BSD 4.4 sockaddrs
    have the IO$M_EXTEND bit set. The code in the drivers to change the
    data structures is very mechanical - move the address family and put the
    length in. If a BSD 4.4 sockaddr were to be passed to the driver with a
    BSD 4.3 IO call, then it would end up putting in an unexpected address
    family. While it could easily be argued that the right place to fix
    this would be in the drivers, we have other problems that we were fixing
    in the kernel and this minimized the number of patches created.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Jeremy Begg [mailto:jeremy@vsm.com.au]
    Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 2:58 AM
    To: info-multinet@process.com
    Cc: jeremy@vsm.com.au
    Subject: "address family not supported" error

    Hi,

    Process Software MultiNet V5.2 Rev A-X, HP rx2660 (1.59GHz/9.0MB),
    OpenVMS
    I64 V8.3-1H1

    I'm trying to set up CIFS T1.1 on this machine and it seems to be
    working.
    (Note that it requires each user account to have SYSLCK privilege by
    default, this will be fixed in due course I am told!)

    Today I tried to get this machine to join a Windows domain (actually our
    local Advanced Server PDC) but instead I saw this error:

    [2008/08/07 16:49:40, 3]
    DKA0:[SAMBA.V11_EFT.SOURCE.LIB]UTIL_SOCK.C;2868)
    Connecting to 192.168.1.2 at port 139
    [2008/08/07 16:49:40, 2]
    DKA0:[SAMBA.V11_EFT.SOURCE.LIB]UTIL_SOCK.C;2904)
    error connecting to 192.168.1.2:139 (address family not supported )

    Does this imply the CIFS routines have been compiled or linked in such a
    way
    that they are incompatible with MultiNet's socket library?

    Thanks,

    Jeremy Begg

  3. RE: "address family not supported" error

    Hi Richard,

    Thanks for the detail, and thanks for addressing this so quickly. I was
    guessing it might be a BSD 4.3 vs 4.4 problem of some sort, so it's nice to
    know I was on the right track :-)

    Regards,

    Jeremy Begg

    >MultiNet V5.n uses BSD 4.4 sockaddr data structures internally. These
    >have 1 byte of length, 1 byte of address family, 2 bytes for port, and 4
    >bytes for address (for IPv4). The drivers (BG and INET) provide
    >backwards compatibility for the support of BSD 4.3 sockaddr data
    >structures that prior versions of MultiNet used. (2 bytes of address
    >family, 2 bytes for port, etc.) Which type of data structure is expected
    >is determined by the IO function code - those that use BSD 4.4 sockaddrs
    >have the IO$M_EXTEND bit set. The code in the drivers to change the
    >data structures is very mechanical - move the address family and put the
    >length in. If a BSD 4.4 sockaddr were to be passed to the driver with a
    >BSD 4.3 IO call, then it would end up putting in an unexpected address
    >family. While it could easily be argued that the right place to fix
    >this would be in the drivers, we have other problems that we were fixing
    >in the kernel and this minimized the number of patches created.


    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Jeremy Begg [mailto:jeremy@vsm.com.au]
    >Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 2:58 AM
    >To: info-multinet@process.com
    >Cc: jeremy@vsm.com.au
    >Subject: "address family not supported" error


    >Hi,


    >Process Software MultiNet V5.2 Rev A-X, HP rx2660 (1.59GHz/9.0MB),
    >OpenVMS
    >I64 V8.3-1H1


    >I'm trying to set up CIFS T1.1 on this machine and it seems to be
    >working.
    >(Note that it requires each user account to have SYSLCK privilege by
    >default, this will be fixed in due course I am told!)


    >Today I tried to get this machine to join a Windows domain (actually our
    >local Advanced Server PDC) but instead I saw this error:


    > [2008/08/07 16:49:40, 3]
    >DKA0:[SAMBA.V11_EFT.SOURCE.LIB]UTIL_SOCK.C;2868)
    > Connecting to 192.168.1.2 at port 139
    > [2008/08/07 16:49:40, 2]
    >DKA0:[SAMBA.V11_EFT.SOURCE.LIB]UTIL_SOCK.C;2904)
    > error connecting to 192.168.1.2:139 (address family not supported )


    >Does this imply the CIFS routines have been compiled or linked in such a
    >way
    >that they are incompatible with MultiNet's socket library?


    >Thanks,


    > Jeremy Begg



+ Reply to Thread