From: Christopher R. Hertel (crhNTS.UMN.EDU)
Date: Tue Mar 23 2004 - 17:58:11 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Okay, I've done some thinking and reading...

First off: Paul's right. NATs were not really in use when VCs were
created, and TCP wasn't the most common transport then either. The fact
that KB #301673 exists highlights the fact that NATs and VCs were not
designed to mix. At all. :)

Second, I remember now that Jeremy and Tridge showed me lots of cases in
which new Session Setups happened within the same TCP connection. There are
a lot of layers to SMB networking so it's not really that suprising. I
never looked at the VC number, but it's likely that it's just a counter
that's assigned per transport connection. When I think of it that way it's
not a surprise that it would be non-zero.

What surprises me (and I'm not sure if I understand this bit correctly) is
that VC=0 on an existing connection would reset the existing connection. Is
that what people are seeing?

Still learning!

Chris -)-----

----------------------------------------------------------------
Users Guide http://discuss.microsoft.com/archives/mailfaq.html
contains important info including how to unsubscribe. Save time, search
the archives at http://discuss.microsoft.com/archives/index.html

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]