I've been having issues on a "known good" test network with 9.10.2U3 with failed SMB browsing network-wide. I'm getting the error NT_STATUS_REQUEST_NOT_ACCEPTED very early in the session, as soon as he client has reached the server and tries to get a tree of browsable objects, followed by restarting the use of SMB and retrying - for the end user it shows as browsing fails, although Wireshark and the Samba logs all show there's no connectivity issues. I get similar running smbclient -L localhost -U% on the host: "protocol negotiation failed: NT_STATUS_INVALID_NETWORK_RESPONSE". But I could use samba by IP which suggested a name server issue.
A google search eventually pinned down the culprit, which was setting minimum client version = SMB2 in SMB config. Apparently this causes this issue for reasons not known, and indeed when I reversed it and restarted samba, the test network resumed running smooth as butter.
My question is, is this a SMB bug (if so is there a bug#/fix/workaround?) and as at least some other people have hit it, is there a sensible workaround I can apply or a way to avoid the issue, if I want to block insecure early versions of the protocol, since using this parameter seems to have the slightly unfortunate side-effect of destroying SMB browsing on my test net right now? :D
(Sorry if this has been asked before now - it probably has. I did try searching but nothing came up for that specific text and there are thousands of posts for SMB2 issues and browsing failure; I couldn't find anything covering this. Thank you for help!)
A google search eventually pinned down the culprit, which was setting minimum client version = SMB2 in SMB config. Apparently this causes this issue for reasons not known, and indeed when I reversed it and restarted samba, the test network resumed running smooth as butter.
My question is, is this a SMB bug (if so is there a bug#/fix/workaround?) and as at least some other people have hit it, is there a sensible workaround I can apply or a way to avoid the issue, if I want to block insecure early versions of the protocol, since using this parameter seems to have the slightly unfortunate side-effect of destroying SMB browsing on my test net right now? :D
(Sorry if this has been asked before now - it probably has. I did try searching but nothing came up for that specific text and there are thousands of posts for SMB2 issues and browsing failure; I couldn't find anything covering this. Thank you for help!)