From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: Status of mount.nfs Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:02:51 -0400 Message-ID: <1186146171.7255.6.camel@localhost> References: <20070708191640.GA13962@uio.no> <18065.43199.104020.412029@notabene.brown> <20070715083114.GB4158@uio.no> <18074.50730.591965.39211@notabene.brown> <20070716092047.GA10353@uio.no> <18075.17719.855332.259470@notabene.brown> <20070722191733.GA31501@uio.no> <46A52816.6050500@oracle.com> <20070724172451.GA14026@uio.no> <46A7A5F8.4040204@oracle.com> <46A897CD.50201@RedHat.com> <46A96032.7080503@oracle.com> <46AA089E.50503@RedHat.com> <1185551769.6586.28.camel@localhost> <46AA1A70.5010705@RedHat.com> <1185553679.6586.34.camel@localhost> <46AA2642.60505@RedHat.com> <1185556406.6586.45.camel@localhost> <46AB3BE9.1060903@RedHat.com> <1185906627.6700.30.camel@localhost> <46AFA98E.1070904@oracle.com> <46B0674D.7000803@RedHat.com> <46B0E6DC.4080409@oracle.com> <46B0F747.3050704@RedHat.com> <46B20467.5050601@oracle.com> <1186080125.27480.10.camel@localhost> <46B24FEA.1040300@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, Steve Dickson To: chuck.lever@oracle.com Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGwo5-0004cS-EF for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 06:03:05 -0700 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.10.15] ident=[U2FsdGVkX18KcNIhV1CWPzzlKemOjfLMzOQppMOOaPc=]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1IGwo8-0003HA-Tb for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 06:03:09 -0700 In-Reply-To: <46B24FEA.1040300@oracle.com> List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net 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