Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action:draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv6-00.txt

[dhawal bhagwat <[e-mail]>]

(Sorry for the delay in responding.)  ... 


>} Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:02:38 -0400
>} From: Chuck Lever <[e-mail]>
>} To: dhawal bhagwat <[e-mail]>
>} Cc: Trond Myklebust <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>} Subject: Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action:draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv6-00.txt
>} 
>} 
>} On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:25 AM, dhawal bhagwat wrote:
>} 
>} > 
>} >> } Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:45:07 -0400
>} >> } From: Trond Myklebust <[e-mail]>
>} >> } To: [e-mail]
>} >> } Subject: Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action:draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv6-00.txt
>} >> } 
>} >> } On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 10:45 -0700, [e-mail] wrote:
>} >> } > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>} >> } > This draft is a work item of the Network File System Version 4 Working Group of the IETF.
>} >> } > 
>} >> } > 
>} >> } > 	Title           : NFS operation over IPv6
>} >> } > 	Author(s)       : A. RN, et al.
>} >> } > 	Filename        : draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv6-00.txt
>} >> } > 	Pages           : 8
>} >> } > 	Date            : 2010-10-18
>} >> } > 
>} >> } > This Internet-Draft provides the description of problems faced by NFS
>} >> } > and its various side band protocols, when implemented over IPv6 in
>} >> } > various deployment scenarios.  Solutions to the various problems are
>} >> } > also given in the draft and are sought for approval.
>} >> } > 
>} >> } > Foreword
>} >> } > 
>} >> } > This "forward" section is an unnumbered section that is not included
>} >> } > in the table of contents.  It is primarily used for the IESG to make
>} >> } > comments about the document.  It can also be used for comments about
>} >> } > the status of the document and sometimes is used for the RFC2119
>} >> } > requirements language statement.
>} >> } > 
>} >> } > A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>} >> } > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv6-00.txt
>} >> } > 
>} >> } > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>} >> } > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>} >> } > 
>} >> } > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
>} >> } > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
>} >> } > Internet-Draft.
>} >> } 
>} >> } The RPCBIND requirement (MUST) is definitely unwelcome. The whole point
>} >> } of giving NFSv4 a fixed port was in order to get rid of the reliance on
>} >> } portmapping.
>} > 
>} > Noted.  Our intent was to say that if a portmap call is being made, then 
>} > in case of NFS/IPv6, it MUST be via RPCBIND.  ... 
>} 
>} Curious, is it really necessary to stipulate that?  Have you 
>} encountered IPv6 implementations that attempt to resolve ports with 
>} PORTMAP over IPv6 ?
>} 
>} I suppose this is relevant for implementations that are not based on a 
>} full TI-RPC implementation, but have purpose-built portmap clients and 
>} RPC layers.

We have not seen implementations making PORTMAP calls over IPv6.

We felt that rather than have some implementation pop up using 
PORTMAP/IPv6 (#), expecting other implementations to support it, it would 
be better not to leave that open ended, and instead, clearly require the 
use of RPCBIND in case of IPv6.

(# - for some reason like the one you already mentioned.)

thanks,

-{db}.


>} 
>} -- 
>} chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
>}