Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action:draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv4v6-00.txt

Thomas Haynes <> Mon, 18 October 2010 19:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E3E03A6E51 for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.89
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.416, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y1EMkkwX67AC for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 251BF3A69F0 for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.57,346,1283756400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="469473119"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 18 Oct 2010 12:28:09 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id o9IJS9Pl026758 for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:28:09 -0700
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:28:08 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:28:07 -0400
From: Thomas Haynes <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-2--114759269"
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:28:05 -0500
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Oct 2010 19:28:07.0371 (UTC) FILETIME=[978D99B0:01CB6EFA]
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action:draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv4v6-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:26:41 -0000

Minor nits:

Page 7:

        same server identifier.  An example of well generated server
        identifier can be the one that includes the following:
        (a)  a) MAC address
        (b)  b) Machine serial number

I would expect these items to be part of (b) above (The ':' gives me that expectation).

I find the (a) a) to be confusing.


Page 10:

   instead of the client IP address, for the indexing, as explained here

   As mentioned in Client Identification (Section 6) -

   The client SHOULD always send the same client string, irrespective of
I can't tell if this is bad formatting or if two paragraphs are missing.


   There are scenarios where NFS implementations need to store IP
   addresses in persistent storage, like -

   NSM monitor/notify database.

   persistent reply cache.

I believe you want this lettered.


A larger question on the draft as a whole would be whether we could add some
additional operations to NFSv4.2 to get rid of the guessing. I.e., could a client
send a server a list of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses that it is using and in return the
server respond with the equivalence addresses that it is using?

One issue I can see is that the machines might be on different subnets that use the
same IP addresses. I.e., on the filer's e0a might be a different private subnet
than the on the client's e1.


Finally, it is understated, so I think you should bring more attention to it, but the problem
you deal with in Section 6 applies to symmetric single stack mode topologies as well. I.e.,
all current multi-homed IPv4 deployments.