Re: NFSv4 referrals - custom (non-2049) port numbers in fs_locations?

[Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@redhat.com>]

On 1 Nov 2023, at 5:06, Martin Wege wrote:

> Good morning!
>
> We have questions about NFSv4 referrals:
> 1. Is there a way to test them in Debian Linux?
>
> 2. How does a fs_locations attribute look like when a nonstandard port
> like 6666 is used?
> RFC5661 says this:
>
> * http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5661#section-11.9
> * 11.9. The Attribute fs_locations
> * An entry in the server array is a UTF-8 string and represents one of a
> * traditional DNS host name, IPv4 address, IPv6 address, or a zero-length
> * string.  An IPv4 or IPv6 address is represented as a universal address
> * (see Section 3.3.9 and [15]), minus the netid, and either with or without
> * the trailing ".p1.p2" suffix that represents the port number.  If the
> * suffix is omitted, then the default port, 2049, SHOULD be assumed.  A
> * zero-length string SHOULD be used to indicate the current address being
> * used for the RPC call.
>
> Does anyone have an example of how the content of fs_locations should
> look like with a custom port number?

If you keep following the references, you end up with the example in
rfc5665, which gives an example for IPv4:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5665#section-5.2.3.3

Ben