Subject: Re: smbfs vs ipsec ?
To: Daniel Carosone <dan@geek.com.au>
From: Daniel Carosone <dan@geek.com.au>
List: tech-net
Date: 12/14/2004 15:56:18
--V/VNt6jARIhH3MER
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 10:57:10AM +1100, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> mount_smbfs: unable to open connection
> mount_smbfs: mount error for /mnt: Socket is not connected
>=20
> I've previously (a couple of days ago) had smbfs working fine with
> this same machine, before ipsec was in use.
>=20
> Any ideas what's wrong?

Turns out it was a resolver search-path configuration change in the
interim, despite using -I in both cases, and nothing to do with ipsec
afterall.

With that fixed, it works both with and without ipsec.

Sorry for the noise.

In order to perhaps provide at least some slight value, I will note
for future reference here a reminder that Windows' IPSEC doesn't do DH
group >2 for phase 1 IKE, so you'll need to configure racoon
accordingly.

--
Dan.


--V/VNt6jARIhH3MER
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFBvnJyEAVxvV4N66cRAgZ3AJ9OomiZmWDanqMbe5B0pXSyzmyP8QCg9wok
0mrf8qZMxOno8M0ZceJXk4Q=
=anJH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--V/VNt6jARIhH3MER--