Re: Status of mount.nfs

[Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>]

On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 17:43 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 12:20 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > 
> >> I'm not suggesting that we don't support mounting through a firewall. 
> >> I'm wondering, though, how people expect it to work.  Is it acceptable 
> >> to require a few extra mount options on clients to mount successfully 
> >> through a firewall, or should a mount with no options whatsoever always 
> >> work in this case?
> > 
> > The strategy should be to make the _default_ behaviour safe. If you want
> > to add optimisations that need switching on/off then those may take
> > extra mount options.
> 
> Exactly: is mounting through a firewall an optimization, or is it 
> something that users expect, by default, to work without using extra 
> options?

If the user has opened the firewall for outgoing TCP connections, then
that is one of the things that I think should just work.

It doesn't need to work with maximum efficiency (so if you want to try
sending UDP portmap requests before falling back to TCP, then fine) but
opening UDP ports in the firewall or specifying extra mount options
should not be a requirement.

Trond


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs