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

Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> Mon, 18 October 2010 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADDEA3A6B02 for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.384
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.384 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.215, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j1DxJd7KQPYJ for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out1.uio.no (mail-out1.uio.no [129.240.10.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90F6A3A6ABB for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx4.uio.no ([129.240.10.45]) by mail-out1.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>) id 1P7vll-0007sY-RP; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:53:17 +0200
Received: from c-68-40-206-115.hsd1.mi.comcast.net ([68.40.206.115] helo=[192.168.1.29]) by mail-mx4.uio.no with esmtpsa (SSLv3:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) user trondmy (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>) id 1P7vll-0001Xq-3Z; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:53:17 +0200
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
To: Thomas Haynes <thomas@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <C9B236F2-1F42-4070-A083-1A776B5C9C92@netapp.com>
References: <20101018174520.EB8BA3A6B8B@core3.amsl.com> <C9B236F2-1F42-4070-A083-1A776B5C9C92@netapp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:53:13 -0400
Message-ID: <1287431593.3646.23.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 (2.30.3-1.fc13)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 3 msgs/h 2 sum rcpts/h 4 sum msgs/h 2 total rcpts 1037 max rcpts/h 20 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 27FB1734F868D656D48B0CD4EA9E105B127535DB
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 68.40.206.115 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 2 total 413 max/h 7 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Cc: nfsv4@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action:draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv4v6-00.txt
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:51:50 -0000

On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 14:28 -0500, Thomas Haynes wrote:

> 
> 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?
> 

Why does the server need this information? The NFSv4.1 protocol does not
provide for server-initiated callbacks. All communication channels (i.e.
TCP connections) are initiated by the client in NFSv4.1.

Furthermore, EXCHANGE_ID already provides a mechanism to allow the
client to discover that 2 IP addresses point to the same server. This
mechanism even works independently of the actual transport mechanism
used, so it will work with RDMA and other possible future transport
mechanisms too.

> One issue I can see is that the machines might be on different subnets
> that use the
> same IP addresses. I.e., 192.168.2.14 on the filer's e0a might be a
> different private subnet
> than the 192.168.2.15 on the client's e1.

This is why relying on advertising of private nets via RPCBIND is bad.

Cheers
  Trond