Re: Spercified network name is no longer available....????

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by Thrill5, Apr 13, 2009.

  1. Thrill5

    Thrill5 Guest

    Sounds to me like you could have a name resolution issue because of the NAT.
    Is the name being resolved via DNS, AD, WINS or are you specifing an IP
    address? You can specifiy the server name in the client's "hosts" file or
    "lmhosts.sam" file to avoid the resolution issue. Not sure why it resolves
    but then doesn't but Microsoft does do some weird stuff.

    If you can get a sniffer capture of when it fails, that would definately
    point you in the right direction as to why the the transfers is stopped and
    tell you if this is a name resolution issue.


    "Lovejoy" <> wrote in message
    news:120420091710254065%...
    > We have a windows XP PC, on a private vlan, gig link, behind a PAT NAT.
    > This machine is copying data to and from a cifs server volume that is
    > off campus. The copy will take about 2 hours, as calculated by the
    > windows progress bar. The copy will stop with the following error,
    > "The file XXXXXXXXX cannot be copied because the specified network name
    > is no longer available." Where it stops is sporadic. It could be
    > after 8 minutes, it could be after 75 min. The local PC tech has
    > checked the PC, and has found nothing amiss, and I have checked
    > network, and found nothing that would cause this. The interfaces shows
    > no errors, the remote server shows no errors, the PC log shows no
    > errors, and the NAT log didn't show any errors that I thought would
    > cause this error. I did a Google search, and the error dates back to
    > 2004, but there was no solid resolution. The ones that did find one
    > was limited to soho type routers. I don't manage any of the campus
    > routers, just our local switch(s), a 6509.
    >
    > What I have done so far is to lengthen the NAT time-outs for udp and
    > icmp. Neither have produced any positive results. Of course, this
    > person is the ONLY one to have any issues with my network (if it is
    > even a network issue). Trace routes look fine. I wasn't able to get
    > Wireshark to work to see if there was some reset packet that is
    > stopping the transfer. She is the only one to do a copy this long or
    > big, and is the only one that is copying data to an off campus server.
    > Everybody else is using a local NetApp.
    >
    > I feel it may have something to do with the NAT. I say this because
    > the PC used to be on the public vlan, and it didn't have these issues,
    > or at least they didn't mention it. Due to security issues, it had to
    > be placed on a private vlan behind the NAT. The machine cannot be
    > patched due to the patches breaking the installed software. The error
    > didn't start right away, but after a few days or so. The PC tech will
    > be testing a different machine in the same vlan to see if the issue
    > persists, and I will try and get wireshark to work to do a capture.
    >
    > Are there any suggestions from the audience?
    >
    >
    > Thanks
    > Lovejoy
    >
    > --
    > ===========================================================
    > This space for lease....
    Thrill5, Apr 13, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Thrill5

    bod43 Guest

    On 13 Apr, 05:29, "Thrill5" <> wrote:
    > Sounds to me like you could have a name resolution issue because of the NAT.
    > Is the name being resolved via DNS, AD, WINS or are you specifing an IP
    > address?  You can specifiy the server name in the client's "hosts" file or
    > "lmhosts.sam" file to avoid the resolution issue.  Not sure why it resolves
    > but then doesn't but Microsoft does do some weird stuff.


    the message
    "The file XXXXXXXXX cannot be copied because the
    specified network name is no longer available."

    is microsoft's quaint way of saying that the connection
    has been lost.

    Once a drive is mounted it does not use the name
    again. It is just a single TCP session for all functions
    associated with the mount. Directory listings, file copies,
    the lot. Now prefers TCP port 445 but clients still send
    to TCP 139? as well for every session initiation.

    You can mount cifs drives by IP address, just substitute
    the address for the server name.

    These ones are not presently active but they were working.

    C:\Users\>net use
    New connections will be remembered.
    Status Local Remote Network
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unavailable J: \\192.168.5.70\c$ Microsoft Windows
    Network
    Unavailable K: \\192.168.5.70\d$ Microsoft Windows
    Network
    The command completed successfully.

    C:\Users\>net use K: \\192.168.5.70\d$

    Or you can type the address into Windows Explorer. I
    have been using "net use" since before
    Explorer existed so tend to do it that way but
    the effect is the same.

    Either the network has some problem OR the
    server OR the client is being unresponsive is
    my take on it.

    If no other users are having the issue then it seems unlikely
    to be the server. Micfosoft has good diagnostics in Perfmon.
    thousands of counters about everything under the Gates.

    Definately worth running a ping during the failure.
    Look at RTT as well as simple failure.

    Ideally run wireshark on client and server then
    it will be absolutely clear what is going on.
    bod43, Apr 13, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Thrill5

    Brian V Guest

    "Lovejoy" <> wrote in message
    news:200420091420460251%...
    > Well, after ding some more diggung and using the suggestions lister in
    > this thread, it appears I may be having an issues with kerberos from
    > behind my NAT. What I have found with a packet capture is that there
    > is a kerberos request packet sent out, that comes back rejected, right
    > before the transfer stops with an error message. The odd thing, to me
    > anyway, is that the request is sent out after the transfer has started.
    > I have a pretty standard PAT/NAT set up, and all my other users have no
    > issues. Is there some option I need to set in order for kerberos to
    > work correctly for this one user?
    >
    >


    You could try to force the Kerreros to use TCP. There is a know timeout
    issue when it uses UDP.
    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/244474
    Brian V, Apr 20, 2009
    #3
  4. Thrill5

    Guest

    On 13 Apr, 14:53, Lovejoy <> wrote:
    > Thanks for the reply.  I believe it is being resolved via WINS.  I will
    > have the tech to add the name to the hosts file.  I am at a different
    > site today, but will be there tomorrow.
    >
    > Lovejoy
    >
    > In article <gruf3s$>, Thrill5
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > > Sounds to me like you could have a name resolution issue because of the NAT.
    > > Is the name being resolved via DNS, AD, WINS or are you specifing an IP
    > > address?  You can specifiy the server name in the client's "hosts" file or
    > > "lmhosts.sam" file to avoid the resolution issue.  Not sure why it resolves
    > > but then doesn't but Microsoft does do some weird stuff.

    >
    > > If you can get a sniffer capture of when it fails, that would definately
    > > point you in the right direction as to why the the transfers is stopped and
    > > tell you if this is a name resolution issue.

    >
    > > "Lovejoy" <> wrote in message
    > >news:120420091710254065%...
    > > > We have a windows XP PC, on a private vlan, gig link, behind a PAT NAT.
    > > > This machine is copying data to and from a cifs server volume that is
    > > > off campus.  The copy will take about 2 hours, as calculated by the
    > > > windows progress bar.  The copy will stop with the following error,
    > > > "The file XXXXXXXXX cannot be copied because the specified network name
    > > > is no longer available."  Where it stops is sporadic.  It could be
    > > > after 8 minutes, it could be after 75 min.  The local PC tech has
    > > > checked the PC, and has found nothing amiss, and I have checked
    > > > network, and found nothing that would cause this.  The interfaces shows
    > > > no errors, the remote server shows no errors, the PC log shows no
    > > > errors, and the NAT log didn't show any errors that I thought would
    > > > cause this error.  I did a Google search, and the error dates back to
    > > > 2004, but there was no solid resolution.  The ones that did find one
    > > > was limited to soho type routers.  I don't manage any of the campus
    > > > routers, just our local switch(s), a 6509.

    >
    > > > What I have done so far is to lengthen the NAT time-outs for udp and
    > > > icmp.  Neither have produced any positive results.  Of course, this
    > > > person is the ONLY one to have any issues with my network (if it is
    > > > even a network issue).  Trace routes look fine.  I wasn't able to get
    > > > Wireshark to work to see if there was some reset packet that is
    > > > stopping the transfer.  She is the only one to do a copy this long or
    > > > big, and is the only one that is copying data to an off campus server..
    > > > Everybody else is using a local NetApp.

    >
    > > > I feel it may have something to do with the NAT.  I say this because
    > > > the PC used to be on the public vlan, and it didn't have these issues,
    > > > or at least they didn't mention it.  Due to security issues, it had to
    > > > be placed on a private vlan behind the NAT. The machine cannot be
    > > > patched due to the patches breaking the installed software.  The error
    > > > didn't start right away, but after a few days or so.  The PC tech will
    > > > be testing a different machine in the same vlan to see if the issue
    > > > persists, and I will try and get wireshark to work to do a capture.

    >
    > > > Are there any suggestions from the audience?

    >
    > > > Thanks
    > > > Lovejoy


    Once upon a time I had a problem with MTU and UDP kerberos.

    I forget all the details but there was (Server 2000/3 maybe)
    a registry value that specified the kerberos request size
    that when exceeded caused kerberos to switch to TCP
    from UDP. 2000 bytes seems to ring a bell.
    In one instance I changed it to a value less
    than a single packet which fixed some problem.
    , Apr 20, 2009
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. random electron

    Help: The specified network name is no longer available

    random electron, Jan 29, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    8,447
    =?Utf-8?B?UmljaCBNYWdnaW8=?=
    Feb 3, 2005
  2. =?Utf-8?B?Q2xpZmZU?=

    Available wireless networks tab no longer displays

    =?Utf-8?B?Q2xpZmZU?=, Feb 2, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    759
  3. Goforit
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,637
    Goforit
    Jul 25, 2004
  4. Margo
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    497
    Barb Bowman
    Dec 14, 2007
  5. bod43
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    646
    bod43
    Apr 12, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page