Re: Samba blocked?

["Dan Egli" <dan@shortcircuit.dyndns.org>]

I didn't realize that. I'll look into that. I can not access the machine at
current so I'll print this out and use it when I CAN access it. Any other
ideas so if that fails I can try them?

-- Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael" <mutk@iprimus.com.au>
To: <netfilter@lists.netfilter.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: Samba blocked?


> Dan Egli wrote:
>
> >Ok. I found the lookup order as:
> >wins lmhosts bcast
> >
> >Which is how a windows client would connect. (except it would read
lmhosts
> >first). This needs to work not only for
> >smbclient but also for any windows machines in the 192.168.0.x network.
And
> >adding a lmhosts to each machine is not really an option except as an
> >absolute last resort.
> >
> >I need the system to be able to resolve netbios names via broadcast if at
> >all possible. I still don't see why a request to 192.168.0.255 would
fail.
> >
> >Here's the log fragments when I run smbclient //myserver/shared1 -U
myuser:
> >(resolve order = wins lmhosts bcast)
> >
> >Nov 26 20:33:22 mail last message repeated 2 times
> >
> >Nov 26 20:34:03 mail kernel: IN=lo OUT=
> >MAC=00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:08:00 SRC=127.0.0.1 DST=127.0.0.1
> >LEN=78 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=32814 DPT=137
LEN=58
> >Nov 26 20:34:07 mail last message repeated 2 times
> >Nov 26 20:34:09 mail kernel: IN=lo OUT=
> >MAC=00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:08:00 SRC=192.168.0.2
> >DST=192.168.0.2 LEN=90 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP
SPT=137
> >DPT=32814 LEN=70
> >Nov 26 20:34:10 mail last message repeated 2 times
> >Nov 26 20:34:10 mail kernel: IN=lo OUT=
> >MAC=00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:08:00 SRC=64.122.31.38
> >DST=64.122.31.38 LEN=90 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP
SPT=137
> >DPT=32814 LEN=70
> >
> >Any ideas, anyone?
> >
>
>
> The logs are IN=lo. You have no rules to match interface lo.  Are you
> running smbclient from local? You need iptables rules to allow from lo
> too....
>
> Sorry I didn't think of this before...
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
>
>