From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1C33E9-0006cl-BQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2004 21:50:57 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1C33E8-0006bs-I3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2004 21:50:56 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C33E8-0006bd-Ds
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2004 21:50:56 -0400
Received: from [216.254.0.202] (helo=mail2.speakeasy.net)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168)
	(Exim 4.34) id 1C338q-0002aI-82
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2004 21:45:28 -0400
Received: from dsl081-088-222.lax1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO [192.168.111.2])
	([64.81.88.222]) (envelope-sender <jhoger@pobox.com>)
	by mail2.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; 3 Sep 2004 01:45:26 -0000
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Feature request: integrated smb server?
From: "John R. Hogerhuis" <jhoger@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <7C0FE792-FD47-11D8-9128-000393C4FDC6@triplecatproductions.com>
References: <DABB813C-FD36-11D8-9128-000393C4FDC6@triplecatproductions.com>
	<1094169680.12595.202.camel@aragorn>
	<7C0FE792-FD47-11D8-9128-000393C4FDC6@triplecatproductions.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1094175971.16484.236.camel@aragorn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 18:46:11 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: jhoger@pobox.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

David,

So it would seem that the real issue is that user mode networking isn't
seamlessly passing your SMB traffic.

Given that user mode networking is a lot like going through a NAT box,
what needs to be done is some port forwards for NetBT ports (gosh it's
been a while... TCP 137,138,139? Same for UDP ports? Anyway it's defined
in RFC 1001, 1002).

I think port forwarding has actually just been added, or at least talked
about on the list.

IIRC, however, somewhat more than just port forwarding needs to be done
to pass NetBT through a NAT. We need an ALG (application level gateway)
specific to NetBIOS over TCP (NetBT) since some parts of the packets
need to be rewritten (NATed) beyond just the headers for file sharing to
work right.

Am I on target here? If NetBT "just worked" through user mode I think
you'd have what you want.

-- John.